122+124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1) CWP-27439-2025 Date of decision: 15.09.2025 Manpreet Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another ...Respondents

2) CWP-27443-2025 Gurpreet Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. A.K. Virdi, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate for the respondent(s).

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This common order shall dispose of all the abovementioned writ petitions as they involve a similar issue. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-27439-2025

2. The present petition is preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing or order dated 04.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Secretary, ENG-2, whereby the representation dated 31.01.2024 moved by the petitioner for appointment as Junior Engineer (JE) on compassionate grounds, was rejected.

3. Briefly, the facts are that the father of the petitioner, a Engineer-in- Chief with respondent-PSPCL, died in harness on 19.02.2015. Upon the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application dated 23.04.2015 (Annexure P-19) seeking compassionate appointment to the post of AE/OT (Electrical). The case of the petitioner was placed before the Board of Directors on 02.07.2015 wherein his claim for appointment to the post of JE was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved a representation dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure P-12) citing his qualifications and benefit granted to similarly situated persons in the past, which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 04.06.2024 (Annexure P-1).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been granted compassionate appointment to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC), in spite of him possessing a degree of Bachelors of Technology (B.Tech). The petitioner is eligible and suitable for technical posts in accordance with the PSEB Technical Services Class III Regulations, 1996 (Annexure P-6) OR PSEB Service of Engineers (Electrical) Recruitment Regulations, 1965. However, the same has been overlooked in violation of Clauses 6(b) and 17(a) of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2002 (Annexure P-4) (hereinafter ‘the Scheme’). Further, the respondent-PSPCL ought to have made the appointment within a period of 01 year in view of Clause 13(a) of the Scheme, but the petitioner was appointed on 16.12.2016 while he had made the requisite application on 20.04.2015. While the claim of the petitioner for appointment as JE was rejected, admittedly, similarly situated applicants have been granted the same appointment under the garb of relaxation of rules. Such conduct is discriminatory and violative of the Scheme as well as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, which forbids appointment to posts falling above Class III or IV. Lastly, the respondent-PSPCL has overreached the authority of the Legislature by placing the post of JE under Group ‘B,’contrary to Annexure A of the PSEB Technical Services Class III Regulations, 1996.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Scheme formulated by the Government of Punjab was formally adopted in toto by the respondent-PSPCL vide letter dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure P-15). As per the 5^th Pay Commission Report of the Government of Punjab, the post of JE falls under Group B, in terms of pay band/grade pay. The post also falls under Group B as per the Finance Circular No.29/10 issued by respondent-PSPCL. Clause 5 of the Scheme clarifies that compassionate appointments may only be made under Group C or Group D posts and the post of JE being a Group B post, could not have been offered to the petitioner in spite of his qualifications. Moreover, no o