CWP-15220-2021 -1- 227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15220-2021 DECIDED ON:10.09.2025 BALRAM .....PETITIONER VERSUS CANARA BANK AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. KPS Dhillon, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 ***** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the communication dated 04.04.2018 (Annexure P-3) whereby the request for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent-bank and further praying for a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner compassionate appointment or in the alternative to release ex- gratia amount with interest as per the policy. 2. Brief Facts The petitioner’s father, Gurdev Singh, was employed as a security guard/peon with Canara Bank and died in harness on 29.10.2015. He left behind his widow and three sons, including the petitioner. The family, being in financial hardship, submitted representations dated 04.04.2016 and 05.05.2016 (Annexure MEENU 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15220-2021 -2- P 1-2) seeking compassionate appointment of a dependent. The respondent Bank, however, vide communication dated 04.04.2018 (Annexure P-3), rejected the request for compassionate appointment. The petitioner and his family thereafter continued to make further representations, including one dated 22.05.2018, and also served legal notices. The Bank, through its communication dated 05.04.2021, again denied the claim stating that no mitigating factors existed and that the family was not indigent and all retiral dues amounting to approximately Rs. 8,08,320/- were released to the widow along with family pension. According to the respondent, the family did not fall within the criteria of indigency as per the Compassionate Appointment Scheme of 2014 (Annexure P-8), effective from 05.08.2014, and therefore, the claim was rejected. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner has now approached this Court by way of civil writ petition. Hence, this petition. 3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father died in harness in 2015, leaving the family in acute financial hardship, with no earning member. The petitioner, being a dependent son, became entitled to be considered under the scheme notified on 05.08.2014, which was adopted by the respondent- bank. It is contended that the respondent acted arbitrarily in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by a bald assertion that there were no mitigating factors and that the family was not indigent, without conducting any objective assessment of the financial position as mandated under the scheme. Moreover, it is submitted that the mere release of statutory retiral dues such as gratuity, provident fund, and pension cannot be construed as sufficient ground to deny compassionate MEENU 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15220-2021 -3- appointment, since such benefits are accrued rights and cannot substitute the relief contemplated under the compassionate policy. It is further submitted that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the scheme as no personal hearing was granted, no effort was made by the respondent-bank’s officials to visit the family, and no proper inquiry into the indigent condition was conducted on the contrary, the family was repeatedly given assurances and made to run from pillar to post creating legitimate expectation, only to be denied relief after prolonged delay. Thus, the impugned communication dated 04.04.2018 and subsequent denial dated 05.04.2021 are vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On behalf of Respondent Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. At the outset, it is argued that the petitioner himself never applied for compassionate appointment. The representations were made by petitioner’s brother, Kuldeep Kumar, and even the rejection letter dated 04.04.2018 was addressed to him. The petitioner, thus, has no locus standi to assail the decision taken in respect of another family member. It is further submitted that the petition is hopelessly barred by delay. The employee died in 2015, while the writ petition has been filed only in 2021, nearly six years later. Compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule of recruitment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, much less after such prolonged delay. MEENU 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15220-2021 -4- It is asserted that the family was not found indigent within the meaning of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme of 2014, which applies only to cases of extreme financial distress as petitioner’s family has sufficient means, and one of the sons is even settled abroad. In such circumstances, the claim did not satisfy the parameters of the scheme and was rightly rejected by the competent authority. The counsel for the respondent denies the factum of providing any assurance to the petitioner’s family contending that the respondents followed due process, informed the family of their entitlements, and considered their applications objectively and since compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession subject to policy, the rejection is valid and therefore, this petition deserves dismissal. 4. Analysis Having heard counsel for both parties at length and after perusal of the material placed on record this court is of the considered opinion that the facts are largely undisputed. The father of the petitioner, Late Gurdev Singh, who was serving as a security guard with the respondent Bank, died in harness on 29.10.2015. The widow of the deceased employee was duly paid retiral dues amounting to Rs. 8,08,320.25 towards provident fund and gratuity, along with a death relief of Rs. 1,50,000/-, and in addition she was also sanctioned family pension. It is further borne out of the record that the application for compassionate appointment was considered by the competent authority but was declined on 04.04.2018, inter alia, on the ground that the family was not found to be indigent and thus the claim did not satisfy the parameters of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, 2014. MEENU 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15220-2021 -5- This court is sanguine of the fact that the law in regard of compassionate appointment is well settled. The Supreme Court in “Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138” has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right of the dependent, but only a concession to alleviate immediate financial crisis caused by the death of an employee in harness. Similarly, the Supreme Court in “Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr.(1994) 2 SCC 718”, has reiterated that compassionate appointment must strictly conform to the policy and that belated claims defeat the very purpose of such scheme. Relevant extract of the same is as follows: “it was indicated that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments.” Coming to the case at hand, the employee died in 2015, whereas the writ petition has been filed in 2021, after an unexplained delay of nearly six years. The economic condition of the family is required to be assessed at the time of death or immediately thereafter and not years later. Once retiral dues and pensionary benefits were released, and upon due consideration, the family was found not indigent, the rejection by the respondent cannot be said to suffer from arbitrariness or illegality. Moreover, this Court cannot ignore the fact that as a general rule, employment in government or public sector organizations should be open to all eligible candidates who wish to apply and compete. This principle aligns with Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. Appointments to public office should be made on the basis of merit determined MEENU 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15220-2021 -6- through a fair and competitive selection process and departures from this norm should only be made in exceptional and compelling circumstances i.e, in the event of the death of the sole breadwinner of a family, where the family faces immediate financial hardship as a result. However, if it is shown that the family has managed to sustain itself despite the loss and that a significant amount of time has passed since the death, there is no longer any justification to bypass the standard procedure of appointment. In such cases, granting preferential treatment to one individual would unfairly disadvantage many others, and would be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Relief In view of the above discussion and the settled position of law, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the respondent-bank rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, and therefore, the present petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 10.09.2025 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No MEENU 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document