CWP-13146 v. Punjab State

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has be has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Consti Constitution of India for issuance of der in ce of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of ure of mandamus directing the respon er the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for ner for appointment on compassiona of her nate in lieu of the death of her husband- Gur Gurpal Singh, who was an employe rther, ployee at PUNSUP, Mansa. Further, a prayer has r has been made for directing the resp se the he respondent-PUNSUP to release the pension along n along with other service benefits acc . from its accrued to her husband w.e.f. from the date of hi e of his death along with arrears and in and interest @ 12% per annum. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 2 CONTENTI ENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner's la ner's late husband, a regular employe SUP, ployee of the respondent–PUNSUP, died in harne harness on 13.07.2018. The petitione ife of titioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased ceased employee, and the validity of dity of the marriage has never been disputed. D d. Despite this, neither has her t on s her claim for appointment on compassionat ssionate grounds been considered no n and ed nor have the family pension and other service ervice benefits been released to her ti e than her till date, even though more than seven years years have elapsed since the death urther death of her husband. It is further submitted tha ted that after the demise of her husban jected husband, the petitioner was subjected to domestic v estic violence at the hands of her in m her her in-laws and was ousted from her matrimonial onial home. She is stated to be in acu on the in acute financial distress and on the verge of des of destitution. Learned counsel furt l further contends that her in-laws compelled he lled her to furnish an undertaking stat tion if g stating that she had no objection if her brother- -in-law was appointed on compa of the compassionate grounds in lieu of the death of her of her husband. The said undertakin rtaking was submitted by her under coercion, in o n, in order to maintain peace with her ever, ith her matrimonial family. However, the responde pondent–PUNSUP did not consider t sider the claim of the brother-in-law either. Subse Subsequently, being the dependent wi loyee, ent widow of the deceased employee, the petitione titioner applied for compassionate f the onate appointment in terms of the applicable po ble policy.

3. Per contra, learned counsel NSUP unsel for the respondent–PUNSUP submits that s that the petitioner gave an undertaki dertaking stating that she would have no objection ection if her brother-in-law is consider ead of nsidered for compassionate instead of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 3 her. Howeve owever, on 28.08.2018, she withdrew hdrew her consent and requested that she may her ay herself be considered. The petiti ooklet petitioner was provided a booklet containing t list of necessary docum documents n for consideration compassionat ssionate appointment. It was discover scovered that certain documents were missing, thus g, thus, vide letter dated 05.11.2019 s duly .2019 (Annexure P-5), she was duly informed ab ed about it. Meanwhile, responden f the ondent No.3- mother-in-law of the petitioner, m ner, moved representations before re fore respondent-PUNSUP requesting that Navneet avneet Kaur, minor daughter of the d for of the deceased, be considered for service bene benefits and that the job be reserv ge of reserved till she attains the age of majority.

4. Further, instructions dated ated 19.09.2002 issued by Department o ment of Personnel, Government of P quired t of Punjab (Annexure R-1) required that in case case of multiple claimant/depende ependents, an NOC from all legal heirs/depende ependents and a legal heir/depend y the ependent certificate issued by the concerned Di ned District Commissioner as must be ed for ust be submitted to be considered for compassionat ssionate appointment. As such, the ma istrict the matter was referred to the District Commissione issioner, Mansa, who vide his reply d hat on eply dated 07.11.2019, stated that on account of th t of the family feud, the dependent/le tained dent/legal heir certificate be obtained from the con he concerned Civil Court. The petitio petitioner and respondent No.3 were informed of t ed of this as well. However, instead o er has stead of complying, the petitioner has approached t ched this Court. It is further contende ntended that the present case involves disputed ques d questions of fact, which cannot be Court ot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise o cise of its writ jurisdiction under Art ion of er Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the and therefore the petition deserves to b t may, es to be dismissed. Be that as it may, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 4 learned coun counsel for the respondent–Corpora e fact orporation could not dispute the fact that no cha o charge-sheet, disciplinary proceed roceedings, or criminal case were pending again g against the deceased employee at the at the time of his death.

5. Learned counsel for responden of the ondent No.3- mother-in law of the petitioner, su ner, submits that the petitioner has r has deserted her minor daughter ghter- Navneet Kau et Kaur, who is presently residing wit ng with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is maint maintaining her and providing her wi ly the her with good education with only the financial help al help provided by her younger son h, the er son- Mukhpal Singh. As such, the benefits of th s of the service of the deceased deser deserve to be released to respondent No.3 and the nd the minor daughter of the petitioner at the itioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has ner has failed to disclose the factum of ng her tum of her remarriage, disentitling her to any conce concessions arising out of death of t th of the deceased. However, learned counsel conc l concedes that no documentary evide ect to evidence is available with respect to the remarriag arriage of the petitioner. He furthe aining further submits that upon attaining majority, N ty, Navneet Kaur may be cons considered t on for appointment on compassion ssionate grounds. OBSERVAT RVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

Having heard learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record cord with their able assistance, i resent nce, it transpires that the present controversy h versy has arisen out of filial discord d her scord between the petitioner and her matrimonial onial family. Be that as it may, it is c of this it is clarified that the mandate of this Court is limi is limited to ascertaining the eligibilit ant of igibility of the petitioner for grant of service bene benefits and for consideration for ent as n for compassionate appointment as compared to red to other dependents. As such, the y and h, the issues concerning custody and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 5 maintenance nance of Navneet Kaur, the minor da ho is nor daughter of the petitioner, who is allegedly resi ly residing with respondent No.3, shal 3, shall not be ventured into. Compassionate Appointment 

7. It is settled law that compassion ession assionate appointment is a concession and not a rig t a right. Notably, a claim towards c nt can ards compassionate employment can only be made e made if the applicable Rules or instr r instructions provide for it. The sole purpose behi e behind providing this concession is of the ion is to ensure that the family of the deceased em ed employee is not rendered destitu ath or destitute upon his sudden death or incapacitation citation. Furthermore, such appointmen iew of intment may only be made in view of financial reas al reasons, which must be understood due to erstood as foreseeable poverty due to demise or in or incapacitation of the breadwinn ge in dwinner, and not a mere change in standard of rd of living. Since it allows for Rules for a side-door entry, the Rules concerning c ning compassionate appointment are t s held t are to be interpreted strictly, as held by the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttaranch evi, nchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, (2009) 11 SC 1 SCC 453.

8. In that spirit, it transpires that u that upon the death of the deceased employee, th ee, the petitioner submitted an underta tion if undertaking expressing no objection if her brother- -in-law is considered for compas ead of ompassionate appointment instead of her. Howeve owever, the same was obtained und uently ed under coercion and subsequently withdrawn by awn by her. Rather, the petitioner requ NSUP er requested the respondent-PUNSUP to consider h sider her for appointment on compas ompassionate grounds. On the other hand, the mo the mother-in-law of the petitioner i.e ner i.e. respondent No.3 approached the responde pondent-PUNSUP requesting it to re n for it to reserve the said concession for Navneet Kau et Kaur, for when she attains the age ion of e age of majority. The opposition of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 6 respondent N dent No.3 appears to be based in priv in private discord alone as no cogent material has al has been brought to the fore to f the ore to establish ineligibility of the petitioner. T ner. The factum of the petitioner fi er the ner filing an application under the Protection of tion of Women from Domestic Violen entitle iolence Act, 2005 does not disentitle her from rec m receiving the benefits meant for t of the t for the legally wedded wife of the deceased em ed employee. In fact, the responden tively pondent-PUNSUP was also actively considering t ering the case of the petitioner till it ck of till it was obstructed by the lack of requisite doc te documents i.e. the NOC, as ma as mandated by instructions dated

19.09.2002 ( 002 (Annexure R-1). The relevant p vant part of the same is reproduced below: “1.) If the Government the dependent in the GPF st record, such nominated depend compassionate appointment af employee. ent employee had nominated any of y of F statement or any other service pendants should be considered for t after the death of Government ominated person is not eligible for In pass such nomi 2.) , all compassionate appointment a nt as per policy instructions, all dependents of the deceased e ed employee should unanimously candidate eligible in case of any nominated one dependent can ne, doubt, or where the claimant d ant dependents are more than one, ust refer the matter to the district the appointing authority must for determining magistrate In all such cases the District compassionate appointment. Magistrate shall:- real dependent (i) Call all the claima dependents i.e. Wi adopted sons, adop laimants in his court including all ters, . Widow/Widower/sons, daughters, dopted daughters. (ii) Record Statement their consent for favour of the candid ent of each dependent and obtain t in for compassionate appointment in andidate of their choice. (iii) Consider the eligib candidate in the instructions on th issued from time to ligibility of each claimant/proposed the light of Government policy n the compassionate appointment e to time. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 7 (iv) Adjudge eligibility keeping in view the Service, qualificatio family. ility and suitability of the candidates the age for entry into Government ications, and priority position in the Priority position would be in the in the following order :- er; (a) Widow/Widower; (b) Unmarried Son; (c) Unmarried Daught ughter; (d) Married Son, if livi separately property and o f living in joint family and if living nd other interests are common. Strictly ensure and E. of the family before issuin compassionate appointme policy instructions issued and ascertain the financial position suing the legal authority for the ntments as per the provisions of ued by the State Government. The legal authority issued after following the proced treated as suitability for c sued by the District Magistrate ocedure laid down above, may be for compassionate appointment.

4.) In all such cases, th compassionate appointment mus he or she shall discharge his/her other dependents of the deceased es, the dependent who is offered must execute an undertaking that n of s/her responsibilities as guardian of eased employee.” (emphasis added)

9. It appears that the instructions uctions dated 19.09.2002 (Annexure R-1) contain ontain a clear stipulation regarding to be rding the order of precedence to be employed wh ed while considering multiple depend ionate ependents for grant of compassionate appointment. tment. However, in spite of the s istrate the same, the District Magistrate suggested tha ted that the matter be settled by the ausing y the concerned Civil Court, causing further harass harassment and undue hardship to the ise at to the petitioner, who is otherwise at the helm of th m of the priority order.

10. Further still, the legality of the er and of the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased ceased has not been challenged a g her ged and the claims regarding her PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 8 remarriage h iage have remained admittedly unsubs unsubstantiated. Thus, in the absence of any mater material to prove otherwise, the pet he petitioner is the lawfully wedded wife of the d f the deceased and must be treated as ted as such. Further, learned counsel for responde pondent No.3 has not illustrated an icable ted any provisions in the applicable policy which which allows for reservation of a post attains a post for a minor child till she attains majority. The ty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sa har, Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC SCC 192 has categorically held tha served eld that a vacancy cannot be reserved with reserved served till an applicant attains major ecific majority in the absence of a specific provision allo on allowing for it. As such, it remain istrict emains unclear as to why the District Magistrate w rate would hesitate from intervening ening and exercise his powers under instructions d tions dated 19.09.2002 (Annexure R learly re R-1) when the petitioner is clearly eligible for pr e for priority-based consideration for c n for compassionate appointment. Release of terminal dues of the  f the deceased

11. First and foremost, gratuit gratuity, pension benefits, encashment, ment, EPF etc. are social security me ity measures, granted to an employee or his depen dependents in view of the services State- vices rendered by him to the State employer. Su er. Such service benefits provide c and a vide continuity of livelihood and a tangible sens e sense of security to the bereaved fam vigate ved family, enabling them to navigate the immediat mediate financial hardship and rebui ty. As rebuild their lives with dignity. As such, it is pe t is pertinent that the dues are released ever, eleased in a timely fashion. However in the case at case at hand, the husband of the petiti petitioner died on 13.07.2018, while in service, a ice, and yet she has not received . The eived the due service benefits. The respondent- -PUNSUP has claimed that the d ed by t the disbursement was hampered by unavailability lability of certain necessary docu cuments. This Court finds PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 9 unacceptable ptable to condone the delay of over ervice f over 07 years in release of service benefits to th s to the bereaved family of the decease eceased employee.

12. Pertinently, the service disputes t with sputes arising out of employment with the responde pondent-PUNSUP are governed by t pplies d by the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation ation Revised Service Regulations, 19 s’). It ons, 1985 (hereinafter, ‘bye-laws’). It appears that t s that the bye-laws do not contain any elease n any provision to monitor the release of leave enc ve encashment and other terminal f the inal benefits to the family of the employee w ee who died in harness. However wever, Clause 14 of the Bye-laws mandates ref tes reference to the Punjab Civil Serv e any il Service Rules, should there be any lacunae. The e. The same reads as under: “14. Leave and other cognate matter In respect of leave, and other ovided for in these regulations, me verned by Punjab Civil Service Rul e Corporation frames its own leave atters ther cognate matters not expressly s, members of the service shall be l be Rules (herein after PCS), till such eave rules.” provid govern time C

13. The respondent-PUNSUP is a ment, is a non-pensionable establishment, however, sin er, since no particular provision is av arding n is available in the PCSR regarding the order of er of precedence amongst dependent endents for release of other terminal dues, an anal n analogy can be drawn from Rule 6.1 ule 6.17 of the PCSR, which governs the devolutio olution of family pension to the famil o died e families of such employee who died in harness. Pe ess. Pertinently, Clause 3 of Rule 6.17 ows: le 6.17 of the PCSR reads as follows: “(3) “ followi 3) “Family” for the purpose of llowing relatives of the Government (a) wife in the case of a ma husband in the case of a female (b) a judicially separated wife o being granted on the ground surviving was not held guilty of (c) sons upto the age of twenty- of this scheme will include the ent employee: male Government employee and male Government employee; ife or husband, such separation not ound of adultery and the person y of committing adultery; -five years; PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 10 (d) daughters upto the age of t their marriage but unmarried the family irrespective of their a (e) parents who were wholly employee, when he/she was employee had left behind neithe e of of twenty-five years irrespective of d in ied daughters shall be included in eir age; and lly dependent on the Government as alive provided the deceased either a widow nor a child.” (emphasis added)

14. A perusal of the aforementione lights entioned provision clearly highlights that the spou e spouse was intended to be prioritise ioritised over parents of the deceased employee. Fu Further, a conjoint reading of R d the of Rule 6.17 of the PCSR and the instructions tions dated 19.09.2002 (Annexure R t and xure R-1) reveals a consistent and uniform legi legislative pattern in prioritising th o any sing the spouse with respect to any benefits accr s accrued post-death of an employ ist of employee. Significantly, the list of relatives that es that form a part of ‘family,’ as prov of the as provided under Rule 6.17(3) of the PCSR, have have been carefully curated to place place the spouse at the apex, while parents, plac , placed at the bottom, are only to e of a ly to be considered in absence of a widow and c and children. Likewise, the instructio tructions dated 19.09.2002 (Annexure R-1) categor ategorically assigns the highest pri st priority to the widow, followed successively sively by unmarried sons and daughte is not aughters. This graded hierarchy is not merely proce procedural but reflects a substantive ng the antive policy choice, recognising the heightened e ned economic and social vulnerabili erability of the widow, who is most directly depe dependent upon the earnings of the d f the deceased employee.

15. The practice of granting compas ell as ompassionate appointment as well as disbursing ing service benefits to the family o e are mily of the deceased employee are rooted in th in the same welfare philosophy, d phy, designed to mitigate financial destitution a tion and social dislocation caused f the aused by the sudden death of the employee. T ee. Though operating in distinct d retiral inct domains, one governing retiral PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 11 benefits and s and the other compassionate emp on a e employment, they converge on a singular prin r principle that the widow consti constitutes the primary and most immediate b iate beneficiary. Tritely, beneficial a isions icial and welfare-oriented provisions must receive eceive a purposive and liberal cons ce its l construction so as to advance its objectives, ra ves, rather than defeat it by narrow on. In arrow or technical interpretation. In Deepika Si Singh vs. Central Administrative tive Tribunal, 2022 (4) SCT 87, 7, a two-Judge B dge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme le of preme Court used the principle of purposive int ive interpretation with respect to Rule rvices Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rule ) Rules, 1972, limiting childcare leave ld that e leave to two children, and held that even though hough the petitioner therein had cla r two ad claimed childcare leave for two stepchildren, ildren, she was entitled to maternity le ild i.e. nity leave for her biological child i.e. the third chil rd child, in view of the beneficial natu al nature of such provisions. Speaking through Dr. J h Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the fo , the following as observed: “15. T constru this C approa

15. The provisions of Rule 43(1) mu nstruction. In KH Nazar v. Mathew is Court noted that beneficial legis proach: ) must be imbued with a purposive 126 thew K Jacob, (2020) 14 SCC 126 legislation must be given a liberal "11. Provisions of a beneficial l with a purpose-oriented appro liberal construction to prom construction of the provisions o be avoided. It is the court's dut legislature in making the law ascertained, the statute shou functional interpretation. cial legislation have to be construed pproach. The Act should receive a ve a romote its objects. Also, literal s to ns of a beneficial legislation has to duty to discern the intention of the f the n is law. Once such an intention is should receive a purposeful or

12. In the words of O. Chinna statutory construction of benefi (Workmen case, SCC p. 76, para "4. The principles of st settled. Words occurring such as "social welfare nnappa Reddy, J., the principles of s of ws: eneficial legislation are as follows: para 4) of statutory construction are well rring in statutes of liberal import hts" are legislation and human rights" PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 12 legislation are not to b shrunk to Lilliputian di legislation's the imposture avoided and the prodigali recognised and reduced concerned with the "co "context" of such statutes from Lord Wilberforce's o In Prenn v. Simmonds WLR 1381 : (1971) 3 Al opinion Lord Wilberforce be left behind in some isl is to enquire beyond the matrix of facts in which th interpreted purely on int In one of the cases cited Kumar Verma v. Centr cum-Labour Court , we h Kumar Verma case, SCC ..Semantic lux s or to be put in Procrustean beds or n dimensions. In construing these t be sture of literal construction must be igality of its misapplication must be st be uced. Judges ought to be more "colour", the "content" and the tutes (we have borrowed the words e's opinion 1) 1 [Prenn v. Simmonds, (1971) 1 3 All ER 237 (HL)] ). In the same t to force pointed out that law is not to e island of literal interpretation but the language, un-isolated from the o be ich they are set; the law is not to be internal linguistic considerations. ons. cited before us, that is, Surendra nal- entral Govt. Industrial Tribunal we had occasion to say : (Surendra CC p. 447, para 6) luxuries are misplaced in the of "bread and butter" statutes. utes. s must, of necessity, receive a broad Where legislation is designed to d to inst certain kinds of mischief, the inroads by making "6. interpretation of Welfare statutes mu interpretation. Wh give relief against to make xcursions.? " etymological excurs is not

13. While interpreting a statute the statute was designed to re and then a construction that advances the remedy should be a atute, the problem or mischief that o remedy should first be identified that suppresses the problem and be adopted." CONCLUSI LUSION

16. The untimely demise of the pri family the primary breadwinner of a family can be a cata a catastrophic event, as it has the pote he potential to instantaneously plunge the dependen pendent family into a state of acu y and of acute financial vulnerability and uncertainty. inty. Without a source of regular i ular income, the family's economic stability, edu y, education of children, and their v dized. their very sustenance is jeopardized. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 13 Indubitably, tably, the PCSR and the instructio tructions dated 19.09.2002 accords overriding pr ing primacy to the spouse of the de g her the deceased employee, placing her above every every other family member, in r ee of , in recognition of her degree of dependence. ence. This primacy is embedded in the ed by in the statutory design, reinforced by policy direct directives, and anchored in the broa ate of e broader constitutional mandate of social justice justice and human dignity.

17. Accordingly, in view of the dis t writ he discussion above, the present writ petition is all n is allowed. The respondent-PUNSUP NSUP is directed to: (i) Release all admissible termin terminal benefits, including leave encashment and other service bene encash benefits accrued to her deceased husband, to the petitioner. The petit husban led to e petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. upon th interes pon the same, computable from two months after the date of death of the h months till its f the husband of the petitioner till its actual realisation. The needful be don actual e date e done within 03 months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this ord of rece his order. (ii) Consider and decide the claim o laim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, strictly in on com der of ctly in accordance with the order of precedence, as provided in the instruc preced herein nstructions dated 19.09.2002 wherein the widow has been accorded priorit the wi entire priority in consideration. The entire exercise shall be completed within a pe exercis e date in a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this ord of rece his order. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13146 146-2020 14

18. Pending miscellaneous applicat pplication(s), if any, shall also stand ed of. disposed of. January 20 P.C 20, 2026 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document