Tarun Chaudhary v. State Of Punjab And Another

    


 



 


 







!"
#"#!$

!

%!" &

"'(

#!

)*
   ! "

#
  #

 $%&%'( !

+'
,
-.
!
#
*!

!

%+
&+,
--/,
"'(

!

!"
%!
&0#
1#2,
-.
!
!*
3
#!"0#
%  

 #

) "

! #
*!
.2
4!
*
#
(
2
"!
-!2 5 

#
"

6
!
"


4!

#
"!
 certiorari !
7"#0
#
8*"0
!!



 
!!





*
($
!*
3
. 4##
#


8*
**8

#
*!
#
( !'

;"!#!,
!
"


4!

#
"!

mandamus !0
# !*

!

**
#
*!
0
/!"*
<=
*
 8*
(

*!
/.!8
2$




"

#

#
#!,
)8#
#"#!$
>
!8 "!0
!.

1!
"2
!
#
*!
inter alia 
#
#!
 #
*!
4
!.0

>
!8
?2!$

#

 !*
3 @-

#2








#!





#

 *!
4

$!

0

#
8

#
8#!

#
*!
8. 
**2

!*
3
!
!!.0

*
!
#
*!
! #
**8

8*
0!"

#


!*
3
 
!*2$
($
$0
#
#
*

(
!!.

#

**2$
!
#
'( 
8*
(
!
#

#
!7"
0

7"2

# *!
8*2
#
!
!$
"

#
$!

A

# 8
7"!
!8
#


!*
3

#
2!
#

# 0,
#
*!

2$
(
!

/!"*
<=
*


,
#
 #0#!
7"2,
#

0

(!
'(

6
#
$!

,
#
*!

8*2
#
*28

.2
?0!0

8.

**2

-9"!


!*
3
+0
8*
**8



,
#
*!
4
0.

**!"$

*!2
#!0
(! !*
3

!(2
!8
-9"!


#
*!
**!
!

*!2
#!0

A



"(8
#
!7"
"8

#!!,
#
*!
4

!8
!0!0
#


#
**2



,
#
*!
8.

!*!
-9"!

 !*
3
+0
8*
**8

.4

# 7"2

%
#
8*"0
!!




,
# *!=
**2
!
8*
**8
4
!'

# 0!"

2$


$!

**2$0
#
8

#
*!
0
8. 
!*!



+0
!!,
#4.!,





,
#
4
+

9*2
#
!

2$
 8.0
#
**2

#
*!
.
2!



-9"! 


"!#

2
9*2
($
8!0
#
#
*!
 #

8#!

#.

(

""2$

!*!0

$,


#


* !*
4
!.
!

20
8,
#
*!
8.

!*!





:


0,
#
28

#
*!
4 !'





1!
"2
!
#
*!
"!#!
!2
"*
#
*2$


!"2



!8

#
'"08
!!
($ #
>=(2
-*9
"!

Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 S.C.C. (138) 
"(8
#
#!


2!
*"2

# *2$
!0!0
!29

.
$!

>
"!#!
!2
"*
#
'"08 
#
.
B#

-#!
!#
>0#
"!
*

!
 3 ::5


2

Bora Narayanamma Vs. Union of India and another 




"(8
#
.

#


#
*!
! 8*
**8


8
"

"

2$,
#
*! 
2

8*

#


#
*!

7"!2$
.!
($ #
!
'"08

;"!#!,
#
*!
2!
("
#
!
!' !!



2$
!
#
4!
8

2
($
!* 3

#
!!
4
.!
88"

#
*!

Per contra, 2!
"2
!
!*
3
"(8
# #!

#
*!





#
28

#
*!
4 !'

2$

"

2$
("
2

"

#

#
# 0!"

*$
4

20!

9

#
8#!

# *!

0"22$
8*2$

!.0

&!
-

;!C*"!
 
0.!8
*!8

;"!#!,
#
!.!$
.2.

#
*!
 #
(
!
($
#
"!


3

::A

:
2
 Gurbhinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 


:


+ "

#

#

#
20(2$


8,
#
8* **8

(
0!

>.0
#!
2!
"2
!
#
*!

!
*!"2
 #
!!,

!*!
#
#!

#
*!





# *!
4

$!

0

#
8

#
*!
**2
!

8*
**8
!
7"!0
#
"2
7"2
 0
#
0

8'!$
!
#
!
8

#
$!



#

4 !'


D
4##
!0

#
*!
4
 88"

#8

#!!,
#
0
8.
#!
!*! +0
8*
**8

#
$!


4##
4
!'






#
*!
!8
2

2
# 4!
*
2$

A

;"!#!,
#
202
*!*2
0.!0
# 8*
**8
!
422
2

#.
(
2$ !!
($
#
"2
"!

#
8*
**8

 
!0#
("


0!

#
82$

#

8*2$

 .!
2
!
!0
"

#
#

#
2
(!
4!

# ('


*!.
88
!2



*!.
8*2$8


8! 
"!
!
*0

(+
!
!$

#
8*2$8

#
"
.2.

#
*!

#
(
2
($
#
"! 

3

::A

:
2

Gurbhinder Singh's case (supra)  

:

(!.
#
2240 "5. The legal principles governing compassionate appointments are wellsettled 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.

6. 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 sidedoor entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation". Further reliance may be placed on another Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SAIL v. Madhusudan Das (2008) 15 SCC 560 observed that, "Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants." It has been crystallized by the Hon'ble Apex Court that compassionate appointments must be made strictly in adherence to the policy, to the extent that in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma (2007) 8 SCC 148 the Hon'ble Apex Court stated that the courts cannot compel the employer to make appointments on compassionate ground contrary to its policy.

7. Moreover recently, a TwoJudge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. 2025 INSC 184, the Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of strict adherence to the policy and emphasized that the financial condition of the family, availability of other means of sustenance, and existence of genuine indigence are critical factors. The Court held that where the family is not in immediate financial distress, the very basis for compassionate appointment ceases to exist.

8. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh 2007 (4) SCC 778, held that the terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. The Hon'ble Apex Court through a catena of judgments has observed that: Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying in harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable, reliance in this regard may be placed on Union of India v. Shashank Goswami (2012) 11 SCC 307, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh (2006) 7 SCC 350, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand (2004) 12 SCC 487 and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265."

- #
*2$
!2
"*
($
#
*!
*!!(

20(2$ !!
!
8*
**8
)2.
*!
#!

!*!" #!"! "6.

ELIGIBILITY (a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. The authority concerned must consider as to whether the family of deceased employees is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from employee's death..." 

;"!#!,




*"
#
#
8#!

#
*!
 0"22$
8*2$


!.0
#
&
/.!8

&!
-
 ;!C*"!

-
"#,
#
*!


8
#
20(2$
!!

28 8*
**8

!8

#
**2(2
*2$

1!
"2
!
#
*!
2

#

*2$ 4"2

(
**2(2

#
*!


#
#!

#
*!
#
 



#
28

!7"!

(

"!
8
#!
*2$ *!!


*2$
>4.!,
#


(
!2
"*

#
8 #

(
*2
6


2
*!*2
#
*20
"
# "

#
'"
.

4!
'"!
-
"#,
#
"!
 ("


#
2

#
(

#
*20

#
*!

8!2 .2(2

!!
-$
.
!8
#
!
*!*2

"('
2$
 28
9*


.2.0
8
'"
!



*"!
7" 
24

!
#
>=(2
-*9
"!

State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 8
#
2240
(!.

#
!0! "RELIEF NOT CLAIMED  CANNOT BE GRANTED:

35. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help

 the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted." Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide : Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho, (1898) 25 Ind. App. 195.; M/s. Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 Supreme Court 235.; Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3165.; and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 614 : 2010(2) R.A.J. 479 : (2010) 4 SCC 518."

8*#


)2

2
(
*2
"*
#
'"08

#
>=(2 &"*!8
"!

Allahabad University Etc. vs. Geetanjali Tiwary and others 2025 AIR SC 195,
4#!
#
2240
4
#2 "36. The difference in pleading in respect of civil proceedings and a writ petition was succinctly noticed in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 534 and expressed in the following words: "13. , when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counteraffidavit.

If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counteraffidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counteraffidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counteraffidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.

37. Based on the aforesaid authorities, we hold that while deciding a writ petition on the basis of affidavits, the writ court's enquiry ought to

 be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record as part of the writ petition or the counter/reply affidavit, as the case may be. Findings of the court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the parties. It is wellInigh impermissible for the writ court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in course of hearing." 8*#
 6
.4

#
"
(.,
#
*!
*

8

0
822"
**2,

$,
#22
2

*


 #



  " *" - Neha ##!
*+05!  E53 ##!
!*!(2  E53