IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- 24519-2025 DECIDED ON:25.08.2025 PARAMJEET SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Ms. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer This civil writ petition is preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on Compassionate grounds as his father- Ex-GS 165887N MT Driver Jaswant Singh had died in harness on 27.09.1997.

2. Brief Facts The father of the petitioner joined General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) on 25.10.1994 as a driver and unfortunately died in harness on 27.09.1997, leaving behind his widow and minor children in a state of financial distress. The petitioner’s mother had to file CWP No. 22617 of 2023 for payment of Ex-gratia lump sum compensation, which was decided partially in her favor granting her Rs.

5 lacs out of her claim for Rs. 10 lacs, pursuant to which she filed an LPA No. 1515 of 2024 for rest of her Ex-gratia benefits which is pending for adjudication before this court. After being informed by the respondents, vide letter dated 16.12.2015, that petitioner can claim appointment on compassionate grounds, after attaining majority the petitioner’s mother approached the competent authorities and submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner as per the applicable scheme in the year 2016. The case of the petitioner was placed before the board, and vide letter dated 03.10.2016, the respondents informed petitioner’s mother that her son (present petitioner) could not meet the cut-off criteria wherein he had scored 74/100 marks, also advising her that the petitioner could re-apply again after sometime, however, the petitioner could not meet the criteria in the 2018 and 2019 lists as well, as informed vide letter dated 27.03.2025. The family of the petitioner, struggling with limited resources, complied with the requirements from time to time, yet the authorities failed to take a final decision. Relying on constant assurances, the petitioner continued to pursue the matter diligently. However, despite such repeated assurances, the claim was ultimately rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not fall within the cut-off for consideration. Aggrieved by the above, this petition has been filed, seeking direction to respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

3. Contentions Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire delay spanning over two decades is solely attributable to the administrative apathy of the respondents and not due to any fault or omission on his part. It is further argued that the repeated assurances given by the respondents created a legitimate expectation in the mind of the petitioner that the claim for compassionate appointment would be decided fairly and in accordance with the very object of the scheme, which is to provide financial relief to the bereaved family and denial of the claim after such prolonged deferment not only defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment but also causes grave injustice to the petitioner and his family.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Analysis Before delving in to merits of the present case, it is apposite to discuss the foundational jurisprudence of the provision dealing with appointment on compassionate grounds. The provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., (i) to enable th