IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 02.07.2025 Harpreet Kaur ..Petitioner Versus The Fatehgarh Sahib Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.

and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Ms. Sehej Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. (Oral)

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent- Bank whereby, representation made by the petitioner for grant of Compassionate appointment has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father namely Late Sh. Baldev Singh was working on the post of Security Guard with the Fatehgarh Sahib Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Bank’). Unfortunately, father of the petitioner expired on 03.04.2014 while in service. After the death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner applied for grant of Compassionate appointment on 24.04.2014 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner submitted another application dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure P-3) again requesting for same relief. However, no decision was taken on the said representations submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted applications dated 04.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) and dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) for grant of abovesaid relief. No decision was taken by the respondent-Bank, as a consequence of this, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-6). As no decision was taken on the abovesaid legal notice also, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court bearing CWP No.1381 of 2025. The abovesaid writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 20.01.2025, and the same was disposed of vide order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to the respondent-Bank to decide the legal notice in a time- bound manner. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-7), respondent-Bank has passed an order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-8) vide which, the claim of the petitioner for grant of Compassionate appointment has been rejected. A perusal of the abovesaid order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-8) would show that the request of the petitioner for grant of Compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that now more than 10 years have elapsed, as such, the petitioner cannot be offered Compassionate appointment at this stage.

3. Aggrieved against the abovesaid order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the same.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had immediately, after the death of her father, submitted an application for grant of Compassionate appointment and in fact, it was the delay on the part of respondent- Bank in not considering the case of petitioner for the purpose of grant of Compassionate appointment and, as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

6. In regard to grant of Compassionate appointment is concerned, it is well settled law that the Compassionate appointment is neither a vested right nor a mode of appointment. The object of giving Compassionate appointment is to remove immediate hardship and to tide over the immediate crisis of the bereaved family, who has lost the bread earner. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138. In the abovesaid case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed that the whole object of granting Compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Mere death of an employee does not entitle the family to such source of livelihood. The relevant extract from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“The