Ramandeep Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited), which was dismissed as withdr & Ors.

Judgment

#1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Memo dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-6), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, has been rejected. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds on some suitable post on account of death of his father, namely Sh. Kulwant Singh, who died in harness on 03.06.2011.

The brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the father of the petitioner, namely Sh. Kulwant Singh, who was working as an Un-skilled Worker on regular basis, and was posted at Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Rupnagar, unfortunately died in harness on 03.06.2011, leaving behind his wife, 04 CWP-21178-2026 2 daughters and 01 son (the present petitioner). As per policy prevalent at that point of time, the family of the deceased employee had the option either to seek compassionate appointment or solatium @ Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The mother of the petitioner opted for solatium and as per her entitlement, Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to her as solatium. Thereafter, policy dated 06.12.2022 was issued by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (for short ‘Corporation’), whereby options were given to the families of the deceased employee, who died prior to

16.04.2010 and were eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment. Although, the petitioner was not eligible as per the said policy as his father had died on 03.06.2011, however, still he applied for compassionate appointment, and the said claim has been rejected by the Corporation, vide impugned order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-6). The said order reads as under :- “On the subject cited above as per policy issued by this office vide memo No.2636/3205/ENG-7(1)239/L dated

06.12.2022 only cases of deceased employees who died prior to 16.04.2010 are eligible for consideration. This is for your information and further action.” 2(i) Aggrieved against the abovesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.15298 of 2024 (Ramandeep Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others), which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P- 12) with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, on the same cause of action, with better particulars by attaching the policy for compassionate appointment. Consequently, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. CWP-21178-2026 3

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since at the time of death of his father, the petitioner being minor was not entitled to apply for compassionate appointment on priority basis, therefore, his mother (Smt. Kuldeep Kaur) opted for solatium, and when the petitioner attained the age of majority, his mother approached and represented the respondents-Corporation, vide representation (Annexure P-3), for consideration of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on priority basis. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment.

#4. On receipt of advance copy of the petition, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2-PSPCL has put in appearance and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as at the time of death of father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner opted for solatium instead of compassionate appointment and amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to her as solatium. He further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 2018, whereas his mother approached the respondents-Corporation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2023 i.e. after a delay of about 05 years. Therefore, the instant petition deserves dismissal.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and have gone through the relevant documents with their able assistance.

#6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, namely Sh. Kulwant Singh, unfortunately died in harness on 03.06.2011 and at that point of time, the mother of the petitioner opted for solatium instead of CWP-21178-2026 4 compassionate appointment and the admissible amount of solatium i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to her. Therefore, once the petitioner's mother had already opted for and availed the benefit of solatium consciously in lieu of compassionate appointment, the petitioner is no longer entitled to claim the benefit of compassionate appointment.

#7. Further, the very object of the scheme of compassionate appointment presupposes that the request must be made within the time stipulated, or at the very least, within the reasonable period. In the present case, the petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 2018, however, application for compassionate appointment was submitted by his mother in the year 2023 i.e. after an inordinate delay of about 05 years from the date he attained majority. As per settled law, appointment on compassionate basis cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Such belated claims defeat the purpose of compassionate appointment and cannot be entertained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that stale and delayed applications for compassionate appointment are liable to be rejected and cannot be directed to be considered as a matter of right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow and others Vs. Prabhat Singh : 2013(2) S.C.T. 58 while considering the similar issue has held as under:- “13. Most importantly, the High Court did not take into consideration one of the most significant reasons depicted in the orders passed by the appellants (dated 5.1.2006 and 22.5.2008), namely, that under the OM dated 5.5.2003 appointment on compassionate ground was permissible within a period of three years from the date of death of the concerned employee in harness. Vijay Bahadur Singh, the father of Prabhat Singh had died on 2.3.1996. The candidature of Prabhat Singh, for appointment on CWP-21178-2026 5 compassionate ground, under the OM dated 5.5.2003 could have been considered only till 1.3.1999. Thereafter, Prabhat Singh was rendered ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Pointedly, on aforesaid ground the Review Committee constituted by the appellants to consider the claims of dependents of employees who had died in harness, vide an order dated 21.9.2007, had excluded the names of persons including Prabhat Singh, from the list of pending cases for appointment on compassionate ground, because they could no longer be appointed on compassionate ground, since more than three years had expired after the death of the concerned bread winner in harness. Had the High Court or the Tribunals applied their mind to the aforesaid pre-condition for eligibility for appointment on compassionate ground, none of the directions issued by the High Court or the Tribunals would have been issued. Such directions could have been issued only when the party approaching the Tribunal or the High Court had established a prima facie case, by demonstrating fulfillment of the terms and conditions stipulated in rules/regulations/policy instructions/office memoranda, relevant for such consideration. Had the aforesaid simple exercise been carried out, it would not have been necessary to examine the matter again and again. In the instant case, on a simple issue of compassionate appointment, there have been repeated rounds of litigation, the first time before the CAT- Allahabad Bench, then before the CAT-Lucknow Bench, and thereafter, before the High Court. From the High Court the matter has now been carried to this Court. If only the pre-requisite eligibility of Prabhat Singh for appointment on compassionate ground had been examined, it would not have been necessary to examine the matter again, and yet again. The instant observations have been recorded only to demonstrate how judicial time at different levels has been wasted by entertaining a frivolous litigation. Surely, because Prabhat Singh had approached a judicial forum nine years after the death of his father, whereas, appointment on compassionate ground is permissible only within three years of the death of the bread winner, the matter deserved to have been rejected at the stage of first entertainment. 14. We are constrained to record that even compassionate appointments are regulated by norms. Where such norms have been laid down, the same have to be strictly followed. Where claims for appointment on compassionate ground, exceed, the available vacancies (which can be filled up by way of compassionate appointment), a selection process has to be adopted by the competent authority. The said process, necessarily has to CWP-21178-2026 6 be fair, and based on a comparative compassion gradient of eligible candidates, or on some such like criterion having a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In other words, where there are two candidates but only one vacancy is available, there should be a clear, transparent and objective criterion to determine which of the two should be chosen. In the absence of a prescribed criteria, a fair selection process has to be followed, so that, the exercise carried out in choosing one of the two candidates against a solitary available vacancy, can be shown to be based on reason, fair-play and non arbitrariness. 15. The very object of making provision for appointment on compassionate ground, is to provide succor to a family dependent on a Government employee, who has unfortunately died in harness. On such death, the family suddenly finds itself in dire straits, on account of the absence of its sole bread winner. Delay in seeking such a claim, is an ante thesis, for the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived. Delay in raising such a claim, is contradictory to the object sought to be achieved. The instant controversy reveals that even though Vijay Bahadur Singh, the father of the applicant (Prabhat Singh) seeking appointment on compassionate ground had died on 2.3.1996, Prabhat Singh sought judicial redress, for the first time, by approaching the CAT- Allahabad Bench in 2005. By such time, there was no surviving right for appointment on compassionate ground under the OM dated 5.5.2003. As already noticed above, appointment on compassionate ground under the OM dated 5.5.2003 is permissible within three years of the death of the bread winner in harness. By now, sixteen years have passed by, and as such, there can be no surviving claim for compassionate appointment. 16. Courts and Tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. Courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve, to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment, to all those who seek a court's intervention. Courts and Tribunals must understand, that every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion, wherein directions are issued for appointment on compassionate ground, could deprive a really needy family requiring financial support, and thereby, push into penury a truly indigent, destitute and impoverish family. Discretion is therefore ruled out. So are, misplaced sympathy and compassion.”

#8. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar : 1996 (1) SCC 301 has held as under: - CWP-21178-2026 7 "3. …..The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules."

#9. A Division Bench of this Court in Bijender Singh Vs. State of Haryana : 1999(3) SCT 98 has held as under: - "20. One of the principles which is clearly discernible from the various judicial precedents referred to above, is that the minor dependent of deceased employee cannot claim appointment as of right on his/her attaining majority and unless the rules or the administrative instructions which regulate ex gratia employment/compassionate appointment provide for consideration of the claim of such dependent after he/she becomes major, the Court cannot issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the public employer to appoint such dependent after lapse of many years. It is also consistent view of the Courts that long time gap between the date of the death of the employee and the date of submission of application by an eligible dependent is sufficient to draw an inference that the family of the deceased was not in dire need of assistance in the form of ex-gratia employment/compassionate appointment."

#10. This Court while considering similar issue in Tinku Vs. State of Haryana and others : 2021(4) SCT 18 has held as under: - “8. It is well settled that appointment to public office is required to be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory Compassionate the Constitution. requirement appointment is an exception to the general rule. Provision has been made in order to help the bereaving family immediately, who has lost its bread earner, to tide over the immediate crisis. Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession. A government/public employment is not a hereditary office. Such provision has been made to provide immediate succor to the dependents of the deceased. Moreover, it is also well settled that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right especially after a passage of time. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme CWP-21178-2026 8 Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138.

#11. On the basis of case laws decided earlier, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others : 2025(5) SCC 712 has laid down certain guidelines for compassionate appointment and observed as under: - “7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: That a provision i. for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not ii. a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. That compassionate appointment should be iv. provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.

7.3. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in CWP-21178-2026 9 penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. 7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities' decision in the matter. 7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of CWP-21178-2026 10 succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.”

#12. Furthermore, the earlier petition filed by the petitioner bearing CWP No.15298 of 2024 claiming the same relief, as claimed in the instant petition, was withdrawn by him, vide order dated

08.07.2024, with liberty to file a fresh one, on the same cause of action, with better particulars by attaching the policy for compassionate appointment. Despite the said liberty, the instant petition has been filed after a period of two years from the date of withdrawal of the earlier petition, and the petitioner still failed to attach the policy relating to compassionate appointment of respondents-Corporation. Mere reliance upon the State Government policy cannot confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner. Thus, having failed to place the very foundation of the claim on record, the petitioner cannot seek issuance of a writ in his favour.

#13. As per settled law, appointment on compassionate basis is not an alternate source of recruitment nor does the consideration for such an employment is a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. The object of the policies of the compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial support to the family whose bread winner has lost his life, while in service. Even the case of the petitioner is not covered under the policy dated 06.12.2022 as the said policy was applicable to those families where the death has CWP-21178-2026 11 occurred prior to 16.04.2010 and whereas, the father of the petitioner died on 03.06.2011 and consequently, his claim for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondents-Corporation, vide impugned order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-6).

#14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

15.07.2026 kothiyal (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No