HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-29196-2024 (O&M) **** Deepak Manhas ... Petitioner VS. Punjab National Bank & Ors. ... Respondents **** 1. Judgment reserved on 08.05.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 07.07.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 10.07.2026 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. Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Preeti Grover, Advocate and Mr. Mukul Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents **** Sandeep Moudgil, J. (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 issued in February, 2024 (Annexure P7) whereby the application dated 17.06.2023 (Annexure P5) submitted by the petitioner praying for his compassionate appointment to the post of Peon in the respondent-Bank has been rejected vide order passed in February, 2023 (Annexure P7). (2). The petitioner seeks compassionate appointment on the post of Peon on account of death of his father, who was working as Armed Guard in the erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce and died in a road accident on 24.03.2003 while in service. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that at the time of death of his father, he was minor and the Bank had assured the family that he would be considered for appointment on compassionate basis after V VISHAL SHONKAR 2026.07.10 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29196-2024 - 2 - attaining majority. The petitioner claims to have attained educational qualification of 10+2 and vocational course by the year 2011 and thereafter allegedly moved an application, which according to him stood destroyed when the kacha house of the family was dismantled in the year 2011. Admittedly, however, the first available representation on record is dated 27.06.2023 followed by application dated 05.07.2023 submitted on the prescribed proforma of the Bank, which ultimately came to be rejected in February, 2024. (3). The respondents have opposed the writ petition by specifically pleading that under the applicable scheme dated 20.03.1997, an application seeking compassionate appointment was required to be submitted within one year from the date of death of the employee and in case the dependent was minor, the outer limit prescribed under the scheme was four years, subject to request having been made within the first year itself. The respondents have further pleaded that no application whatsoever was received from the petitioner or his family within the prescribed period and the present claim has been raised after more than two decades from the death of the employee. The plea raised by the petitioner regarding destruction of earlier application also remains unsupported by any contemporaneous material on record. (4). The law with regard to compassionate appointment is no longer res integra. Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment nor a vested right inhering in the dependent of a deceased employee. It is an exception carved out to the normal rule of public employment with the sole object of providing immediate financial succour to the family facing sudden financial crisis due to death of the breadwinner. The Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 held V VISHAL SHONKAR 2026.07.10 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29196-2024 - 3 - that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period once the immediate crisis stands over. Similar view was reiterated in Canara Bank and another versus M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 while holding that compassionate appointment has to be strictly governed by the scheme/policy applicable and cannot be claimed de hors the terms thereof. (5). In the present case, admittedly, the employee died on 24.03.2003 whereas the application in prescribed format came to be submitted only on 05.07.2023 i.e. after about twenty years. Even if the plea of petitioner being minor is accepted, the petitioner admittedly attained majority long back and acquired the requisite educational qualification by the year 2010-2011, yet no material has been placed on record to establish that any claim was pursued within the time contemplated under the scheme. The very object of compassionate appointment, namely immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family, stands completely diluted by such extraordinary and unexplained delay. In fact, such long passage of time itself raises a presumption that the family was able to tide over the financial crisis arising on account of death of the employee. (6). In view of the admitted factual position and the settled principles governing compassionate appointment, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the decision of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. (7). Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (8). Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 07.07.2026 V.Vishal (Sandeep Moudgil) Judge 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No V VISHAL SHONKAR 2026.07.10 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document