106 (4 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1675-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 Sanjeev Kumar …Appellant Vs.

State of Haryana and others …Respondents LPA-1925-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 Tarun Gagat …Appellant Vs.

State of Haryana and others …Respondents LPA-2720-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 Surender Pal …Appellant Vs.

State of Haryana and others …Respondents LPA-712-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 Devender Singh @ Davender Singh …Appellant Vs.

State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shreya Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant(s)

in LPA-1675-2024.

Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant in LPA-712-

2025.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate for the appellant in LPA-2720- 2024.

Mr. Mangesh Goel, Advocate for the appellant in LPA-1925-2024.

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria, Advocate and Mr. Akhil Godara, Advocate for respondent No.5 in LPA-2720 of 2024 and LPA-712-2025.

Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varunveer Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 8 in LPA-1675-2024 & LPA-1925-2024.

***

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. The above-said four appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.05.2024, whereby, the writ petitions filed by the private respondents have been allowed and the benefit of appointment to higher post with retrospective effect granted in favour of the appellants, on compassionate ground, has been set aside.

2. All these four appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. We are otherwise informed that there is observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of these appeals, contained in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)

No.1145-4 and 1145-5 of 2025, decided on 02.05.2025.

3. This again is a classic case of misplaced sympathy being extended to compassionate appointees by granting them benefit of a higher post after nearly 20 years of their having acquiesced to the initial appointment offered on a lower post. To what extent sympathies can be stretched notwithstanding the authoritative pronouncement of law on the nature of compassionate appointment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (4) SCC 138, requires examination. The sympathy extended by the State is to such extent that the long standing seniority on the higher post is also dislodged.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain basic facts are required to be noticed at the outset.

4.1 Appellants before us are compassionate appointees, namely (i) Sanjeev Kumar, (ii) Tarun Gagat, (iii) Surender Pal and (iv) Devender Singh @ Davender Singh.

4.2 So far as Surender Pal is concerned, his father was a Deputy Forest Ranger who died on 02.09.1982. At the time of death of the father of Surender Pal, he was allegedly a minor. He was offered compassionate appointment to the post of Forest Guard on 07.03.1996. This appointment was accepted by Surender Pal and he continued to work as such. Subsequent promotions were also granted to him based upon his initial appointment on the post of Forest Guard. However, on 15.07.2020, he made a representation stating that his initial appointment on the post of Forest Guard was contrary to the government policy and that he was entitled to be appointed on the post of Forester. This representation was considered and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vide a detailed reply made to the State Government, opposed the claim made in the representation on the ground that compassionate appointment was not a substantive right and that once such appointment had been accepted, the principle of acquiescence would come into play and consequently