IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

123 CWP-37315-2025 Date of Decision: December 12, 2025 Sukhwinder Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Brijeshwar Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2, whereby her claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. A consequential direction for her appointment on compassionate grounds on a Class-III post is also sought.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father, who was employed as a Work Charge Bulldozer Operator under the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), died in harness on 26.03.2001. The petitioner, a married daughter, applied for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 27.10.2022. Her claim was initially rejected on the ground that being a married daughter, she was not eligible under the policy dated 21.11.2002. Subsequently, pursuant to an order of this Court in CWP No. 9447 of 2025, the matter was reconsidered and rejected afresh vide the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 on the grounds that the petitioner has four siblings and that she resides at a different address from her mother, thereby questioning her dependency and the genuineness of the financial crisis.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the rejection is arbitrary, non-speaking, and based on irrelevant considerations. It is further submitted that the number of siblings and the address difference have no nexus with the eligibility for compassionate appointment, which is meant to provide immediate succour to a family in financial distress.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception to the normal mode of recruitment, granted strictly in accordance with the applicable policy. The counsel further submits that the authority has not only considered the amendment to the policy dated 29.01.2024, which includes married daughters within the definition of dependent family members, but has also undertaken a holistic assessment of the petitioner’s case on its individual merits, as mandated by the Government’s communication dated 31.01.2025. The counsel emphasizes that the order legitimately takes into account material factors such as the petitioner’s marital status, her husband’s substantial government income, the existence of four other siblings, and the fact that she resides separately from her widowed mother. These considerations, far from being extraneous, are crucial to determining whether the family continues to face such immediate financial distress as to warrant the exceptional relief of compassionate appointment, a relief that is not a right but a concession strictly governed by policy and judicial discipline.

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

6. The legal principles governing compassionate appointments are well-settled and have been consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court. It is trite that compassionate appointment is not a right, but a concession granted to the family of a deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis arising out of the death of the sole breadwinner. The object is to provide immediate relief, not to provide employment as a matter of course or opening a backdoor entry into employment.

7. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009) 11 SCC 453 held that, “Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side- door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation” , Further reliance may be placed on another Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Su