CWP-2794-2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (204) CWP-2794-2017 Date of Decision : July 02, 2026 Shiv Parshad .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Kunal Vinayak, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate, for Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.5- Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the claim raised by the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment, has been declined. 2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand. 3. The father of the petitioner had joined Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) on 25.10.1979 on the post of R.M. (SSA). Unfortunately, while working on such post, on 11.06.2007, he died. Thereafter, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment on a Class-IV post. The claim HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2794-2017 2 of the petitioner was not being considered properly as he was not given appointment on compassionate grounds, so he filed an Original Application i.e. OA No.437/PB/2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), which was allowed with the direction to the respondents-BSNL to re-consider the claim of the petitioner and pass fresh order. The said claim was rejected on 31.05.2014, which was impugned by filing Original Application No. 060/00856/2015. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) found that the rejection of the claim for the grant of compassionate appointment was valid and needs no interference and the original application was dismissed which led to the filing of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once, the father of the petitioner, who was employed with the BSNL, had died while in service, the respondents were under an obligation to grant the benefit of compassionate appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that non- grant of the said benefit is arbitrary and illegal by the respondents and such facts have been ignored by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure P-1). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the policy which was made applicable was wrongly applied retrospectively upon the petitioner, which is incorrect. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the claim was raised in a particular circle for appointment HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2794-2017 3 where there was no vacancy and therefore, in the absence of any vacancy to be filled up, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted and the comparison done by the petitioner with the consideration of the claim of Raj Kumar Ranga is incorrect as he was not appointed in the zone in which the compassionate appointment was being claimed by the petitioner and was rather appointed in Haryana. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 9. It may be noticed that in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, 1994 SCC (4) 138, it was observed that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the same is a concession extended by an employer in certain difficult circumstances where-after, the death of an employee, the family suffers financial distress. 10. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Canara Bank v. Ajith Kumar G.K., reported in 2025 INSC 183, the compassionate appointment to be granted only in “hand-to-mouth” cases, not due to mere fall in life standards. Relevant paragraph 29 of the said judgment is as under:- “The second sub-issue pertains to the real objective sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment. We have noticed the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and construe such objectives as salutary for deciding any claim for compassionate appointment. The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2794-2017 4 employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in “hand- to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is ‘below poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.” 11. By applying the said settled principle of law in the present case, as the death of the father of the petitioner was in the year 2007, financial distress cannot be there as the petitioner has survived for approximately two decades. The claim which is being raised by the petitioner has been raised as a matter of right by treating the compassionate appointment as a source of appointment, which is incorrect. 12. Further, the respondents are on record to show that though the claim was raised for compassionate appointment in a particular circle but there was no vacancy in the said circle. In the absence of any vacancy, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The example of others who were appointed on compassionate grounds despite having lesser merit than the petitioner, were appointed in the other circle HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2794-2017 5 where the petitioner never raised any claim hence, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances mentioned hereinbefore, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 02, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2026.07.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document