CM-4059-2026 in/and LPA No. 1665-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (131) CM-4059-LPA-2026 in/and LPA No. 1665-2026 Date of Decision : 01.07.2026 Daljit Kaur ...Appellant Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Ms. Jaspreet Kaur Somal, Advocate for the appellant. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-4059-LPA-2026 Present application has been filed for seeking condonation of delay of 69 days in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of 69 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA-1665-2026 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1548 of 2015, wherein, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with regard to grant of compassionate appointment in respect of death of husband of the appellant, which took place on 31.10.2003. KANCHAN 2026.07.06 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-4059-2026 in/and LPA No. 1665-2026 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had already filed an application in the year 2003 seeking benefit of compassionate appointment but the same was not granted by the authority concerned and, therefore, the delay in granting the benefit of compassionate appointment to the appellant was attributable to the respondents, which cannot be treated as a ground enough to decline said benefit to appellant. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the same. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with her able assistance. 4. It may be noticed that compassionate appointment is not an alternate source of appointment or a regular employment channel but it is granted to mitigate the financial hardship being faced by family of the deceased. 5. In the present case, the death of the employee concerned occurred in October, 2003 and the writ petition was only filed before this Court after 12 years i.e. in the year 2015. Once, the family was able to sustain for a period of more than one decade without receiving said benefit of compassionate appointment, it cannot be said that the family was in such financial distress so as unable to make both ends meet, as it is a settled principle of law that delay in approaching appropriate forum for grant of any relief/benefit is fatal, especially in case of party seeking “compassionate appointment”. KANCHAN 2026.07.06 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-4059-2026 in/and LPA No. 1665-2026 3 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Director of Town Panchayat and others Vs. M. Jayabal and others, 2025 INSC 1423 has held as under :- “15. It is a settled principle of law that delay in filing of writ petition before the High Court is fatal for grant of relief to the party. This principle is more applicable in the cases of compassionate appointments. The idea behind compassionate appointment is to take care of immediate financial crisis in the family of the deceased employee. In such case, the delay would mean that the family could survive even after death of the employee, as they may be having another source of income. In such circumstances, the party approaching the court with a significant delay can be denied the relief.” 7. Further, the learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that appointment on particular post by way of compassionate appointment could only be granted to extent of 5% of the total seats/posts and no post became available till the year 2006 so as to accommodate the appellant, which is the year till when the claim of appellant for grant of compassionate appointment had to be kept alive being 3 years from the year such claim was made i.e. in the year 2003. Once, no post became available to be filled from 5% quota under compassionate appointment within the period of three years of the death of employee concerned, the denial of the same benefit cannot be treated as arbitrary. 8. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that from the year 2006 onwards, the appellant has already been working with the KANCHAN 2026.07.06 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-4059-2026 in/and LPA No. 1665-2026 4 Chandigarh Administration on ad hoc basis. That being so, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere for grant of benefit of compassionate appointment to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be treated as perverse either on facts or law. 9. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present appeal. 10. Dismissed. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 01, 2026 kanchan Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No KANCHAN 2026.07.06 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment