IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25124-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.08.2025 Rohit ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate and Mr. Chahat Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the speaking order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-13). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sweeper or any other post under Punjab Education Department as per the Policy for appointment on compassionate grounds dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-3) and further to direct the respondents to release the retirement benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, etc. along with interest @ 12%

to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that a speaking order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-13) was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is receiving family pension. The petitioner’s father was employed as Sweeper in Municipal Corporation at Pathankot and he died in harness on 14.01.2017. The father of the petitioner was survived by his widow and two sons, including the petitioner. The petitioner being dependent upon his father, has applied for compassionate appointment on 02.08.2022 for the post of Sweeper in terms of the letter No.11/05/98-4PP2/14420 dated 21.11.2002 issued by Government of Punjab. The petitioner’s mother and brother have also submitted an affidavit in self-declaration that they have no objection in case the petitioner is appointed as Safai Sewak. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing a petition i.e. CWP No.27199 of 2023 and in the meantime, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the impugned speaking order was passed on 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-13). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the retiral benefits like leave encashment, gratuity, etc. have not been paid by the respondent/Corporation till date. Further in similar circumstances, an employee namely Naseem Matu, had died in harness on duty and although the widow of deceased Nazeem Matu, was receiving monthly pension, his son Simu has been granted appointment on compassionate grounds, however, different yardsticks have been adopted by the respondent/Corporation in the case of the petitioner. As such, the act and conduct of the respondent/Corporation is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment Asha Rani vs State of Punjab, 2015(4) SCT 250 and submits that hyper-technical and unreasonable restrictions on the right of such person cannot be applied by denying compassionate appointment. Even this Court in CWP No.11533 of 2013, titled as Veena Kumari vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 11.05.2016, has issued directions to consider the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds wherein the husband had passed away before his regularization. Moreover, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Manpreet Singh vs The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, 2024 NCPHHC 11798 and the judgment of Raghbiro and another vs Canara Bank and others passed in CWP No. 2591 of 2020, decided on 08.04.2022

4. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab, who appears on advance notice, could not controvert that the grounds on which the petitioner’s claim was rejected are untenable in law and further the family pension received by the petitioner’s mother cannot be considered as part of the family income for assessing eligibility for compassionate appointment, in view of the binding judgments relied upon by the petitioner. He fur