HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Decided on 04.12.2025 ****

Harbhajan Singh ... Petitioner VS.

National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Sr.Advocate along with Messrs Nikhil Sehrawat, Siddheshwar Hans and Deepak Goyat, Advocates, for the respondents ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 14.09.2016 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure P5) and to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner in the light of the policy dated 01.05.1974 (Annexure P4).

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that his father Harpal Singh, who died in harness while serving as Driver, on 07.09.1997 and immediate thereafter, he applied for compassionate appointment on 20.11.1997, however, his requests were rejected on 12.03.2001 with an observation that the compassionate appointment have been dispensed with since 11.12.1998. He submits that the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner/appellant vide judgment and decree dated 16.07.2003 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda (Annexure P1), however, the the appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondents was also partly accepted observing that the compassionate appointment is not a right vide judgment dated 06.08.2004 (Annexure P2). The Regular Second Appeal No.3825 of 2004 preferred by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure P3) holding directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s claim with reference to 1974 policy and his eligibility has to be taken on the date of application of 1977. It is averred that respondent No.3 vide order dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure P5) again rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that after the death of the father of the petitioner, he was given the benefit of Rs.5,65,310/- and as he is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that immediately after the death of the petitioner’s father on 07.09.1997, he immediately applied for compassionate appointment in the respondent-Department vide application dated 20.11.1997 i.e. during the currency of the existant policy dated 01.05.1974 and his claim was rejected after a lapse of 3 years on 12.03.2001 on a very whimsical ground that the earlier policy has been superseded by the policy dated 12.11.1998. Reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana & Others, Full Bench, 2012 (2) SCT 736 (4). He contends that petitioner’s claim has been discriminated against many other persons like Raj Kumari, Thakur Davinder Singh and Sudha Devi who were given compassionate appointments in view of the old policy dated 01.05.1974. It is exhorted that this ground was very much part of the suit proceedings wherein the respondents were directed to produce the record relating to above said appointees, however, the said order was never complied and no such record was placed before the Court, intentionally and deliberately.

(5). Written statement dated 18.10.2017 has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been averred that in compliance with the appellate order dated 06.08.2004 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bathinda, the respondents considered the application of the petitioner taking the date when suit was filed by the petitioner i.e. 13.12.2001 and under the policy dated 01.05.1974 and the same was rejected vide order dated 14.09.2004 (Annexure R1). It is submitted that even as per in compliance with this order dated 05.08.2016 passed in RSA-3825-2004, the petitioner’s case was considered in reference to 1974 policy and it was found that his claim was not meeting out the conditions laid down in th