IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 Sarabjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Anil Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent-UOI (through V.C)

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 01.08.2018 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, the claim of the petitioner that he should be given appointment in the Group C post other than Store Khalasi, which is a Group D post, has been rejected by the authorities, which decision has been upheld by the Tribunal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once it is clear that upon the death of the father of the petitioner in the year 2010, the petitioner became entitled for the grant of compassionate appointment, the same should have been given on Group C post, whereas Group D post was offered in the year 2013 and having no other option, the petitioner joined without protest but, the respondents were under obligation to grant the petitioner the compassionate appointment as per his entitlement, which has not been seen by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim therefore, the appropriate order be issued to the department to offer Group C post to the petitioner instead of Group D post.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent-UOI submits that once, the Group D post of Store Khalasi was offered in the year 2013, which was accepted by the petitioner, after a period of five years, the petitioner could not have claimed the Group C post as he has no right to claim compassionate appointment against a certain post, thus, it has rightly been declined by the Tribunal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. As per the settled principle of law, the compassionate appointment is not a mode of appointment rather the same is to be offered so that the family of the deceased employee does not suffer from financial crunch.

6. Even otherwise, the claim of the higher post after accepting the compassionate appointment on a particular post, has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while passing order in Civil Appeal No. 2208 of 2007 tilted as “I.G.(Karmik) and others vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi” decided on 27.4.2007 wherein it is held that once the compassionate appointment is offered to a candidate and the same is accepted by him, later on the said candidate cannot claim higher post.

Relevant Paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"Furthermore, Appellant accepted the said post without any demur whatsoever. He, therefore, upon obtaining appointment in a lower post could not have been permitted to turn round and contend that he was entitled for a higher post although not eligible therefor. A person cannot be appointed unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility criteria, the Superintendent of Police could not have made any recommendation in violation of the rules. Nothing has been shown before us that even the petitioner came within the purview of any provisions containing grant of relaxation of such qualification. Whenever, a person invokes such a provision, it would be for him to show that the authority is vested with such a power."

7. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while deciding the Civil Appeal No. 2061 of 2015, titled as “The Rajashthan State Road Transport Coporation and others vs. Revat Singh” decided on 20.02.2015. Relevant Paragraph No.8 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"8. In I.G.(Karmik) and others vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC 162, this Court has held that compassionate appointment can n