CWP-4029- IN THE 247 Harjit Singh Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. 227 of the Constitution of India certiorari, mandamus quashing on the following prayers: 1 -2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Harjit Singh VERSUS State Power Corporation Limited and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ order of direction on the following prayers:- i) “The order dated 26.03.2021 passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Chief Engineer (Personnel) PSPCL, Patiala (Annexure P-9) vide which the representation submitted by petitioner dated 2.11.2010(Annexure P-4) stands rejected by respondent NO.2 through which the petitioner has requested to give the job to him on compassionate ground in place of his late mother who was employed at 132 KV- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4029-2023 Date of Decision: August 28, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS State Power Corporation Limited and others ..Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate for The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of or any other appropriate writ order of direction The order dated 26.03.2021 passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Chief Engineer (Personnel) PSPCL, Patiala (Annexure the representation submitted by petitioner 4) stands rejected by respondent NO.2 through which the petitioner has requested to give the job to him on compassionate ground in place of his late mother -Sub Station, Tarn Taran as work , 2025 .....Petitioner ..Respondents Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate for and in the nature of or any other appropriate writ order of direction The order dated 26.03.2021 passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Chief Engineer (Personnel) PSPCL, Patiala (Annexure the representation submitted by petitioner 4) stands rejected by respondent NO.2 through which the petitioner has requested to give the job to him on compassionate ground in place of his late mother Station, Tarn Taran as work PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.15 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4029- 2. mother of the petitioner in her duty hours Government of Punjab appointment on 02.11.2010. Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran (Annexure P the petitioner had been living with the deceased and fully dependent upon her. The case of the petitioner was appointment as per respondent No.6 27.01.2011 compassionate appointment 17.02.2014 (Annexure P case of the petitioner without the consent of respondent No.6. petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP disposed of 2 -2023 charge Peon but she died on 3.7.2010 and that too in her duty hours. ii) For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding respondent No.1 to give the job of a work charge Peon in place of his mother late Pritam Kaur w/o late Sajjan alternative to provide any other job to which the petitioner is found eligible/entitle in view of the instructions issued by Government of Punjab dated 19.9.2002(Annexure P Learned counsel for the petitioner mother of the petitioner-late Smt. Pritam Kaur in her duty hours. The petitioner in terms of the policy Government of Punjab, Annexure P-2, applied for appointment on 02.11.2010. Vide office order dated Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran (Annexure P the petitioner had been living with the deceased and fully dependent upon . The case of the petitioner was to be appointment as per Punjab Govt. Policy dated 21.11.2002. In the meantime, respondent No.6-Manjeet Singh represented vide application dated 27.01.2011 along with affidavit submitted that compassionate appointment to his broth 17.02.2014 (Annexure P-7) the Deputy Chief Engineer has forwarded the case of the petitioner without the consent of respondent No.6. approached this Court by filing CWP disposed of vide order dated 16.02.2021 with a direction to decide the charge Peon but she died on 3.7.2010 and that too in her duty For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding respondent No.1 to give the job of a work charge Peon in place of his mother late Pritam Kaur w/o late Sajjan Singh. In the alternative to provide any other job to which the petitioner is found eligible/entitle in view of the instructions issued by Government of Punjab dated 19.9.2002(Annexure P-2).” Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the late Smt. Pritam Kaur died in harness on 03.07.2010 . The petitioner in terms of the policy dated 19.09.2002 of 2, applied for compassionate office order dated 30.09.2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran (Annexure P-6), it was concluded that the petitioner had been living with the deceased and fully dependent upon to be considered for compassionate olicy dated 21.11.2002. In the meantime, Manjeet Singh represented vide application dated submitted that he is not in favour of granting to his brother Harjit Singh. Further, on 7) the Deputy Chief Engineer has forwarded the case of the petitioner without the consent of respondent No.6. Thereafter, the approached this Court by filing CWP-6309-2017 which was vide order dated 16.02.2021 with a direction to decide the charge Peon but she died on 3.7.2010 and that too in her duty For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding respondent No.1 to give the job of a work charge Peon in place Singh. In the alternative to provide any other job to which the petitioner is found eligible/entitle in view of the instructions issued by the died in harness on 03.07.2010 dated 19.09.2002 of compassionate passed by it was concluded that the petitioner had been living with the deceased and fully dependent upon considered for compassionate olicy dated 21.11.2002. In the meantime, Manjeet Singh represented vide application dated favour of granting Further, on 7) the Deputy Chief Engineer has forwarded the Thereafter, the 2017 which was vide order dated 16.02.2021 with a direction to decide the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.15 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4029- representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance thereof Annexure P considered in the light of policy of 2002 (Annexure prescribed under the policy with regard to the dependent in case of a doubt has not been done is liable to be set aside and petitioner being the dependent son of deceased Pritam Kaur no reply filed 3. controvert the fact that Clause 3 of the Policy stipulates explicitly case of an compassionate appointment are more than one. must refer the matter to the District Magistrate for determining the real dependent in such cases. as under:- 3 -2023 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance thereof Annexure P-9 was filed. The claim of the petitioner was not considered in the light of policy of 2002 (Annexure prescribed under the policy with regard to the dependent in case of a doubt has not been done is liable to be set aside and petitioner being the dependent son of deceased Pritam Kaur is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. There is filed on behalf of respondent No.6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 could not controvert the fact that Clause 3 of the Policy stipulates explicitly any doubt or in case where the claimants compassionate appointment are more than one. must refer the matter to the District Magistrate for determining the real dependent in such cases. Relevant extract of policy dated 19.09.2002 be ....3) “In case of any doubt, or where the claimant dependents are more than one, the appointing Authority must refer the matter to the District Magistrate for determining the real dependent for compassionate appointment. In all such cases the District Magistrate shall:- i) Call the claimants in his Court including all dependents i.e. Widow/Widower/Sons, daughters, adopted sons, adopted daughters. ii) Record statements of each dependent and obta consent for compassionate appointment in favour of the candidate of their choice. representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance 9 was filed. The claim of the petitioner was not considered in the light of policy of 2002 (Annexure P-2). The procedure as prescribed under the policy with regard to the determination of the real dependent in case of a doubt has not been done, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and petitioner being the dependent son of deceased is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. There is .6. espondents No.1 and 2 could not controvert the fact that Clause 3 of the Policy stipulates explicitly that in doubt or in case where the claimants/dependents to the compassionate appointment are more than one. The appointing authority must refer the matter to the District Magistrate for determining the real Relevant extract of policy dated 19.09.2002 be read ....3) “In case of any doubt, or where the claimant dependents are more than one, the appointing Authority must refer the matter to the District Magistrate for determining the real r compassionate appointment. In all such cases the Call the claimants in his Court including all dependents i.e. Widow/Widower/Sons, daughters, adopted sons, adopted Record statements of each dependent and obtain their consent for compassionate appointment in favour of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance 9 was filed. The claim of the petitioner was not as termination of the real the impugned order is liable to be set aside and petitioner being the dependent son of deceased is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. There is espondents No.1 and 2 could not in to the The appointing authority must refer the matter to the District Magistrate for determining the real read ....3) “In case of any doubt, or where the claimant dependents are more than one, the appointing Authority must refer the matter to the District Magistrate for determining the real r compassionate appointment. In all such cases the Call the claimants in his Court including all dependents i.e. Widow/Widower/Sons, daughters, adopted sons, adopted in their consent for compassionate appointment in favour of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.15 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4029- 4. priority position steal a march over son. The impugned Annexure P drill of procedure provided under the policy of 2002 5. (Annexure P the matter to the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 6. conclude the determination strictly in terms of the policy of 19.09.2002 giving due weightage as explained in Clause 3( period of four weeks to offer the appointment to the petitioner 4 -2023 iii) Consider the eligibility of each claimant/proposed candidate in the light of Government policy instructions on the compassionate appointment issued from time to iv) Adjudged eligibility and suitability of the candidates keeping in view the age for entry into Government Service, qualifications and priority position in the family. Priority position would be in the following order: a) Widow/Widower b) Unmarried son c) Unmarried daughter d) Married son, if living in a joint family and if living separately property and other interests are common.” It appears that respondent No position detailed in the policy, the petitioner steal a march over his brother respondent No.6 who is a married dependent . The impugned Annexure P-9 has been passed without procedure provided under the policy of 2002 In view of the above, the impugned order (Annexure P-9) is set aside and the appointing authority is directed to refer the matter to the District Magistrate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Further the District Magistrate conclude the determination strictly in terms of the policy of 19.09.2002 due weightage as explained in Clause 3( period of four weeks. Further the respondent to offer the appointment to the petitioner Consider the eligibility of each claimant/proposed candidate in the light of Government policy instructions on the compassionate appointment issued from time to time. Adjudged eligibility and suitability of the candidates keeping in view the age for entry into Government Service, qualifications and priority position in the family. Priority position would be in the following order:- c) Unmarried daughter d) Married son, if living in a joint family and if living separately property and other interests are common.” o.6 is married son and as per the the petitioner being unmarried will his brother respondent No.6 who is a married dependent has been passed without following the procedure provided under the policy of 2002 (Annexure P-2). he impugned order dated 26.03.2021 the appointing authority is directed to refer agistrate within a period of three weeks from the agistrate Tarn Taran is directed to conclude the determination strictly in terms of the policy of 19.09.2002 after due weightage as explained in Clause 3(iv) of the policy within a espondent/competent authority is directed in case upon determination, the Consider the eligibility of each claimant/proposed candidate in the light of Government policy instructions on the Adjudged eligibility and suitability of the candidates keeping in view the age for entry into Government Service, d) Married son, if living in a joint family and if living separately property and other interests are common.” .6 is married son and as per the being unmarried will his brother respondent No.6 who is a married dependent following the dated 26.03.2021 the appointing authority is directed to refer agistrate within a period of three weeks from the n is directed to after within a is directed the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.15 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4029- petitioner is found to be dependent on the deceased Prita policy. 7. 7. the Court, he is at liberty to move an appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the contempt of Court against the respondents. 8. application(s), if any. August 28, 2025 P.C 5 -2023 petitioner is found to be dependent on the deceased Prita In case the respondent(s) deviates the Court, he is at liberty to move an appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the contempt of Court against the respondents. Disposed of, accordingly, so also the pending mis application(s), if any. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : petitioner is found to be dependent on the deceased Pritam Kaur in terms of deviates from the directions issued by the Court, he is at liberty to move an appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the contempt of Court against , so also the pending miscellaneous (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No in terms of from the directions issued by the Court, he is at liberty to move an appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the contempt of Court against cellaneous (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.15 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document