IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 Date of decision: 17.03.2025 Shiv Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS Punjab National Bank and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. J.C. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate and Ms. Preeti Grover, Advocate for the respondent(s)-Bank.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Challenging the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the respondents vide which the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was declined, the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that late Sh. Balak Ram, father of the petitioner, was employed in Punjab National Bank as a Peon-cum-Daftary and was posted in Branch Office Kheranwali. He died on 17.01.2016 while in service whereupon an application for compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner on 07.04.2016. All the documents as asked by the respondent-Bank were duly furnished. The petitioner was, however, served with the impugned communication dated 06.09.2019 informing that his claim was rejected on the ground that the family is not indigent. The operative part of the order is extracted as under:-

“Sh. Shiv Kumar s/o Late Sh. Balak Ram (105260) Ex-Daftary- Expired on 17.01.2016-Appointment on compassionate grounds.

Please refer the proposal for compassionate appointment in favor of Sh. Shiv Kumar s/o Late Sh. Balak Ram, ex-Daftary.

In this regard, we have been informed by HRMD, HO, New Delhi that the proposal was scrutinized by the committee who observed that the condition of the family is not indigent. As such it has not found favor of the competent authority.

Please inform the subject accordingly under intimation to this office.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the respondents had taken into consideration the pensionary and other DCRG benefits, that had been released to the family on the death of the employee, in concluding as above, whereas the policy specifies that the claim for compassionate appointment is not to be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee received financial benefits under other welfare schemes. He thus contends that the reasons cited by the respondents for declining the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by referring to the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and pensionary benefits was contrary to their own policy. He further makes a reference to the specific document i.e. proceedings of the Committee dated 29.09.2018 appended by the respondents to contend that the said Committee itself noticed that the petitioner fulfills the requirement and eligibility for recruitment in Subordinate Cadre as PTS (Part-time Sweeper) despite the same they have wrongly not accepted the claim of the petitioner notwithstanding his eligibility and the petitioner being dependent upon the deceased Government employee.

4. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment dated 14.02.2024 in CWP-28347-2017 titled as ‘Rekha Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank and others’, which reads thus:-

“8. In the present case, petitioner’s husband passed away in 2015 and her claim was rejected on 26.10.2016. She approached this Court on 17.11.2017. There is no lapse on the part of petitioner. The writ petition, since then, on account of multiple reasons is pending before this Court. It is settled proposition of law that no one can be made to suffer on account of lapse on the part of Court. If petitioner is denied effective relief on account of efflux of time, it would not be true justice. It is settled law that justice must not only be done but must also seem to be done. The Supreme Court in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, (1988) 4 SCC 284 has held that a litigant cannot be made to suffer because of act of Court. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

“8. It is well-settled that no man should