Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 113010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Santosh Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-15666-2011 (O&M)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.S. Mannipur, Dhwani Sharma
For the Respondents: Harish Kumar Nain
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is subject to strict eligibility criteria, including regular service and timely application; it cannot be claimed based on the grant of family pension or after an inordinate delay.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Regular service requirement - Appointment on compassionate grounds is admissible only to dependents of regular employees; status as an ad-hoc employee disqualifies the candidate. (Para 16)
(B) Delay and Laches - Timely application - A claim for compassionate appointment made after an inordinate and unexplained delay (e.g., 11 years) is hit by delay and laches and cannot be entertained. (Para 11, 13)
(C) Constructive Res Judicata - Order 2 Rule 2 CPC - Failure to seek compassionate appointment in a previous writ petition where the same cause of action existed bars subsequent claims. (Para 10)
(D) Family Pension vs. Compassionate Appointment - Distinct Schemes - Grant of family pension to temporary employees under a specific scheme does not entitle the dependent to compassionate appointment as both are governed by different instructions. (Para 12, 16)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment despite the deceased husband being an ad-hoc employee and the claim being filed after a significant delay.
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a Writ, Order or direction especially in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby petitioner has been denied the appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Instructions issued by the Government by considering the petitioner's husband as ad hoc employee, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in case of " Sheela Devi Versus State of Haryana and others " reported as 2009(1) RSJ page 113; AND for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground under the then prevalent at the time of death of her husband i.e. 8th October, 2000 and provide her appointment on compassionate ground.
Brief sequence of events in chronological order is as follows:–
01.09.1994: Vide order dated 01.09.1994 (Annexure P-1) (now deceased) husband of the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as S.S. Master.
13.09.1994: The husband of the petitioner had joined on 13.09.1994.
08.05.1995: Govt. had issued Instructions dated 08.05.1995 (Annexure P-5) for appointment of dependents of deceased employees, on compassionate ground.
16.06.1997: On 16.06.1997, Govt. of Haryana had issued Instruc employees who had completed 2 years of service on 31.01.1996 and had been recruited through Employment Exchange, shall be regularized. As husband of the petitioner was having less than 2 years of service as on 31.01.1996, therefore, his services could not be regularized in terms of the above Instructions.
08.10.2000: Husband of the petitioner had expired on 8.10.2000, after completing 6 years of service as adhoc employee.
2004: Petitioner had filed CWP-7193-2004 titled as Santosh Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, claiming family pension.
11.04.2005: Vide order dated 11.04.2005 (Annexure P-2), the said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court, and respondents were directed to grant family pension to the petitioner and to release the entire arrears within a period of 3 months.
22.08.2008: The said order dated 11.04.2005 was further challenged by the respondent-State; and matter reached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 22.08.2008 (Annexure P-3), SLP(Civil) No. 20427 of 2005 titled as State of Haryana and others vs. Santosh Devi filed by the respondent-State was dismissed.
17.10.2008: In compliance of order dated 11.04.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by this Court, respondent passed order dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure P-4); and petitioner was granted family pension vide PPO No. 37257/F/HR and was also paid arrears from 09.10.2000 to 31.10.2006.
20.02.2009: It is the claim of the petitioner that her husband was treated as regular employee for the purpose of grant of family pension. But petitioner was not considered for compassionate appointment on the ground that her deceased husband was not a regular employee. Thus, petitioner had served legal notice dated 20.02.2009 to treat the husband of the petitioner as regular employee. As no response was received thereto, petitioner had filed CWP-2240-2010 titled as Santosh Devi vs. The State of Haryana and others; which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure P-6) with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the legal notice within a period of 3 months.
30.08.2010: Vide impugned order dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure P-7), claim of the petitioner for Ex-Gratia appointment, has been rejected.
4.4.2011: Petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No. 311 of 2011 titled as Santosh Devi vs. Shri Vijayendra Kumar, IAS, Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh on 10.02.2011 on the ground that previously the respondents denied pensionary benefits vide order dated 21.04.2004 which has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 11.
