IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-24.09.2025 Yadwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Randhir Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG, Punjab.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing the order dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure P-17) passed by the respondents, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. A further prayer has been made to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground, on account of death of his father.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Naib Singh, father of the petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Officer with the respondent-department and was the sole bread winner of the family. His father expired on 12.05.2011 and left behind three dependent family members, i.e., petitioner, his mother and his brother. The petitioner was the elder son and had passed 10+2 examination at the time of the death of his father and applied for compassionate appointment on 06.06.2011. However, he was asked to furnish his detailed particulars on a proper proforma and the same was also furnished by him to the respondents. After the receipt of the documents, the verification process was undertaken with regard to the authenticity of documents by the respondents. The information furnished by the petitioner was found to be correct and vide letter dated 20.01.2012 (Annexure P-6), the case of the petitioner was recommended by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2. However, the case of the petitioner was examined properly and it was rejected on the ground that his mother was already in government service and he could not be given compassionate appointment. The petitioner again submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 with a request to reconsider his claim specifically highlighting that his father had died after prolonged illness as he was suffering from chronic diseases and remained hospitalized for a long period. Consequently, the entire family was on the verge of starvation.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the Government of Punjab had issued a policy dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-9) for providing compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employees. As per the said policy, the compassionate appointment could be provided to dependent family members, i.e., spouse, son, unmarried daughter etc., Since, the petitioner was the son of late Naib Singh, he was eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, keeping in view the academic qualification. Still further, again in the year 2005, the Government issued instructions dated 18.07.2005 and the relevant extract of the said instructions is as follows:-

“WHERE THERE IS AN EARNING MEMBER (a) "In deserving cases even where there is already an earning member may be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the Secretary of the Department concerned, who before approving such appointment will satisfy himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified having regard to member of dependent, assets and liabilities left by the Government servant among of the earning member is also his liabilities including the fact there are earning member is residing with the family of the Government servant and whether he should not be a source of support to other members of the family."

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was never informed by the respondents since the mother of the petitioner was already in government service, his case could not be considered for compassionate appointment, however, as per the instructions of 2005 (Annexure P-10), the compassionate appointment could be made, even if, there was already