IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.11.2025 Deepak Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Ms. Pooja Sareen, Advocate, and Mr. Vishal Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P-14) whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, who was working as Baildar (work-charged) in the respondent-department had unfortunately died on 23.09.2012 and at that time, the age of the petitioner was only 19 years and his father left behind his son i.e. petitioner and widow mother of the petitioner and the whole family was dependent upon the deceased, who had rendered 26 years 10 months and 10 days of service as Baildar. However, the claim of the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was wrongly rejected by the department vide order dated 30.04.2013 (Annexure P-7) and even thereafter also vide order dated 12.02.2015 (Annexure P-10) the claim for compassionate appointment of the present petitioner was rejected on the ground that the deceased employee was working in work-charged capacity as such the case is not considerable as per instructions of the Punjab Government dated 21.11.2002. The petitioner again submitted representation dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-12) seeking compassionate appointment followed by reminder dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P-13) and the said claim has again been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P-14).

3. Learned State counsel, who appears on receipt of advance copy of the paperbook, has opposed the claim of the petitioner by submitting that there is a considerable delay in approaching this Court as the claim for compassionate appointment has already been rejected vide order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure P-9) and again on 12.02.2015 (Annexure P-10).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner unfortunately died on 23.09.2012 and the claim raised by the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the department vide letters dated 30.04.2013 (Annexure P-7) and again on 13.08.2013 (Annexure P-9) and 12.02.2015 (Annexure P-10). Once the claim of the petitioner and his mother for compassionate appointment has already been rejected by the department twice, therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim compassionate appointment.

6. Even otherwise, now a period of 13 years has passed and as per settled law, appointment on compassionate basis cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow and others v. Prabhat Singh, 2013(2) S.C.T. 58 while considering the similar issue has held as under: -

“13. Most importantly, the High Court did not take into consideration one of the most significant reasons depicted in the orders passed by the appellants (dated 5.1.2006 and 22.5.2008), namely, that under the OM dated 5.5.2003 appointment on compassionate ground was permissible within a period of three years from the date of death of the concerned employee in harness. Vijay Bahadur Singh, the father of Prabhat Singh had died on 2.3.1996. The candidature of Prabhat Singh, for appointment on compassionate ground, under the OM dated 5.5.2003 could have been considered only till 1.3.1999. Thereafter, Prabhat Singh was rendered ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Pointedly, on aforesaid ground the Review Committee constituted by the appellants to consider the claims of dependents of employees who had died in harness, vide an order dated 21.9.2007, had exclu