110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1124-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13th August, 2025 ANKIT .…...Appellant(s) V/s. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present Ms. Diksha, Advocate, for the appellant. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) 1. The claim for compassionate appointment of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Single Bench after noticing the facts of the case as per which the claim itself was instituted after 21 years of death of the deceased employee. 2. Though various submissions are raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the factual finding returned by the learned Single Bench that the claim for compassionate appointment by the appellant was instituted after 21 years remain undisputed. 3. It has otherwise come on record that after the death of employee in the year 2003, the wife of the deceased was offered compassionate appointment which she did not avail. Instead, she accepted ex-gratia amount of `2,50,000/-. The claim, for compassionate appointment, made by the appellant on the ground that he was then minor, cannot be entertained inasmuch as compassionate appointment is not a vested right but is a concession granted by the employer only to tide over SURESH KUMAR 2025.08.20 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1124-2025 (O&M) p. 2 the sudden difficulty faced by the family due to the death of the sole bread earner. 4. Considerations germane for grant of such appointment would not subsist after 21 years. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s mother had not opted for the ex-gratia amount and only wanted job to be given to her. This plea is noticed only to be rejected inasmuch as if the widow was keen in availing the compassionate appointment, a claim ought to have been made by her within a reasonable time. That however was not to be the case here. Merely because the ex-gratia amount was credited in her account after three years, as is alleged, that also will not be a ground for the appellant to come with a case for grant of a compassionate appointment after such a long time. 6. In such view of the matter, the LPA is dismissed. 7. All pending applications, if any, in this case are disposed of accordingly. [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] JUDGE [ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE August 13, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No Whether Reportable : Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2025.08.20 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document