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

Lakhwinder Singh ... Petitioner VS.

Punjab National Bank & Anr. ... Respondents ****

1. Judgment reserved on 25.03.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 14.05.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 15.05.2026

4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA ****

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

Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Sewak, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate and Ms. Preeti Grover, Anshul Pareek, Advocates for the respondents ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

Prayer (1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the order/letter dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure P5) passed by respondent No.2 vide which claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. He seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his claim and give him appointment as Clerk/Cashier on compassionate grounds as per policy dated

03.01.2015.

Facts (2). The undisputed facts are that Late Sh. Ram Singh, father of the petitioner, was employed with Punjab National Bank as Clerk/Head Cashier at Branch Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana and died in harness in the year 2003, when the petitioner was a minor, having been born on 09.04.1989. No request for compassionate or ex-gratia appointment was made by the widow or any other family member within the period prescribed under the Bank’s then prevailing “Scheme for Employment on Compassionate Grounds” dated 20.03.1997, which required a request within one year of death, with a limited extension up to four years in case of minor/unqualified dependents, subject to an initial request within one year. The petitioner subsequently completed his graduation in 2014 and obtained a diploma in Hardware & Networking, and after the Bank brought in a new “Scheme for Compassionate Appointment to a Dependent Family Member of a Deceased Employee/Employee Retired on Medical Grounds due to Incapacitation” dated 25.09.2014 and 03.01.2015, which cover deaths on or after 05.08.2014, he submitted a representation dated 16.04.2016 seeking compassionate appointment followed by legal notice dated 22.08.2017. He even filed CWP No. 26049 of 2017 and in pursuance thereto, the respondents vide order dated 03.10.2018 rejected his claim for compassionate appointment.

(3). He has now filed the present writ petition challenging the said rejection order.

Petitioner’s contentions (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, being the dependent son of a deceased employee who died in harness, is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, particularly after the Bank reintroduced a comprehensive compassionate appointment scheme in 2014–2015, and that his representation dated 16.04.2016 was made promptly upon such scheme coming into force and upon his acquiring the requisite educational qualification. It is urged that the petitioner’s minority at the time of death explains the absence of any earlier application, that the family has continued to suffer financial hardship, and that denial of compassionate appointment in these circumstances defeats the very purpose of the scheme, which is to alleviate the sudden financial crisis of the bereaved family.

(5). It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 is non-speaking and mechanical inasmuch as it merely recites the issue of limitation and does not examine relevant factors such as the petitioner’s minority, subsequent educational achievements and financial condition of the family, or the benevolent object of the compassionate appointment policy. The petitioner also alleges arbitrariness and discrimination, asserting that in other similar cases the Bank has taken a liberal view and granted compassionate appointment, whereas in his case it has chosen to reject the claim on hyper-technical grounds, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Const