Pardeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others



 
  
   CWP106982023 Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Pardeep Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents



  !"
"

 #$%$&'

Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Barjesh Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

"

(!) * 1.

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
for quashing the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure P12) and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of 

directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner   contends that the late father of the petitioner was initially appointed as work charge Chowkidar with the respondent with effect from 06.06.1989 and continued to perform his duties uninterruptedly until 14.02.2013. The case of the petitioner's father along with other eligible daily wage employees who were recommended for regularization was prepared by the respondentPSIEC. The issue was considered in a meeting held on 10.09.2012 and a clarification was sought on 21.09.2012 as discernible from

Annexure P3. On 15.02.2013, the father of the petitioner unfortunately expired in harness while in service as discernible from Annexure P1. On 26.02.2013, the Finance Department, Government of Punjab accorded approval for regularization of 57 work charge and 322 daily wage employees subject to the conditions as mentioned in communication dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure P 4). In compliance thereof, on 12.03.2013, the Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Punjab, issued an order (Annexure P5) regularizing the services of 56 work charge and 321 daily wage officials with immediate effect. However, the father of the petitioner who was working as a work charge Chowkidar and had expired merely one month earlier, was excluded.

The mother of the petitioner, namely, Rajwati, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 12.08.2013 as discernible from (Annexure P6) and her application was rejected on 07.03.2014 (Annexure P7) on the ground that since her late husband had expired prior to the regularization of his services, as such, in view of the instructions dated 21.11.2002, compassionate appointment cannot be provided to legal heirs of the work charge employees. Another representation was filed on 23.04.2019 (Annexure P9) by the mother of the petitioner requesting respondent No.2 for her appointment on compassionate grounds and detailing her pecuniary condition & hardship being faced by her in raising the minor children which led to filing of writ petition by the mother of the petitioner bearing CWP No.

19110 of 2019 titled as '
     ' which was withdrawn on 14.12.2022 with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars.

representation on 26.02.2021 and 06.12.2021 (Annexure P11). The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure P

12) in a cryptic manner without recording any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order (Annexure P12) as it is completely nonspeaking, unreasoned and issued without due application of mind which does not withstand the judicial scrutiny. He seeks compassionate appointment in terms of the policy dated 21.02.2002 (Annexure P13). He further submits that if a policy has been framed by the Government of Punjab and adopted by the respondentCorporation, the respondent cannot deviate from it and is bound to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the policy of 2002.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the father of the petitioner was a work charge employee, and at the time of his death, there was no policy in force providing for compassionate appointment to the next of kin of a work charge employee. The petitioner's father admittedly expired in the year 2013, whereas the petitioner first sought compassionate appointment in the year 2021, at a belated stage. The claim filed by his mother had already been rejected on 07.04.2014 (Annexure P7). As such, the petitioner cannot be allowed to reagitate the same issue by seeking compassionate appointment.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, it transpires that the father of the petitioner being a work charge employee who expired prior to the regularization of his services, was not covered by any existing policy for compassionate appointment at the time of his demise in 2013.

+ 5.

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception on humanitarian grounds thus it should be granted strictly in accordance with the policy governing it. The Apex Court has even held that the Courts cannot direct the employer to act contrary to its policy decision in matters related to compassionate appointment.

6.

A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in     



 !!"#$$ %%&'( held that, "
    
 

              
  " , Further reliance may be placed on another Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in )* +    !!,#  $'  %%  '-! observed that, " 

          



 

 


      



   

" It has been crystallised by the Hon'ble Apex Court that compassionate appointments must be made strictly in adherence to the policy, to the extent that in .

/// 0 



   !!1#, %%$&, the Hon'ble Apex Court stated that the courts cannot compel the employer to make appointments on compassionate ground contrary to its policy.

7.

NOTE  II of the letter No.11/105/98/4PPII/14420 dated 21/11/2002 addressed to all heads of departments, all Commissioners of Divisions, All Deputy Commissioners, All SubDivisional Officers in State of Punjab and Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court clearly states that "

      




 

 

       

      


 
 

 
       

"

, 8.

It is a trite law that appointment on compassionate ground must strictly adhere to the policy governing it. Admittedly when the deceased employee passed away, he was not a regular employee and the policy dictates that to claim compassionate appointment the deceased employee must be a regular employee.

9.

In light of the established legal position, this court finds no grounds to uphold the writ petition.

10.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

11.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

)"

*  ! !

, ! Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No