[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Kaur vs Chandigarh Administration & Ors on 20 January, 2026
-1-
204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-1548-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.01.2026
Daljit Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
Chandigarh Administration & Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JAGMOHAN BANSAL.
Present:- Ms. Jaspreet Kaur Somal, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of decision dated 18.07.2012
(Annexure P-7) whereby respondent rejected her claim for compassionate
appointment.
2. The petitioner's husband passed away on 31.10.2003. He was
working with Municipal Corporation Chandigarh as Gardener (Mali). The
petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in December' 2003. The
respondent included her name in the list of applicants eligible for
compassionate appointment. She was considered as per seniority in the list,
however, could not be selected because of insufficient number of posts. The
respondent by impugned decision deleted her name from the list on the expiry
of three years because it was policy of the respondent to retain name of
applicants in the list for three years. There were many applicants senior to
petitioner in the list who were also deleted on account of non-availability of
1 of 5
posts. The respondent has made 5% quota under direct recruitment for
compassionate appointments. As per reply, petitioner is working with
respondent through outsource agency.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's
husband passed on 31.10.2003. She filed application seeking appointment on
13.12.2003. The respondent included her name in the list of eligible candidates.
The respondent considered dependents of other employees despite expiry of
three or five years period from the date of death of employee. The petitioner's
name was deleted from the list of eligible candidates on 27.12.2007, however,
she was informed in 2012. The petitioner deserves to be considered on
compassionate ground.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that
petitioner's husband passed away in 2003. She is working with respondent
through outsource agency. As per the policy of 2003, maximum 5% seats could
be filled up through compassionate appointment. There was three years cap in
the policy. Name of petitioner was duly included in the list of eligible
candidates. During 2003 to 2005, 150 seats fell vacant and 8 seats were filled
up through compassionate appointment. No post became vacant during 2006
and petitioner's name was deleted from the list in 2007. All the selected
candidates were senior to petitioner. There was no discrimination with the
petitioner. The respondent could not make appointment beyond 5% quota.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. Object of compassionate appointment or ex-gratia payment is to
protect the family of deceased employee from being driven to destitution,
penury and starvation. The object of appointment on compassionate ground is
not to give a member of the deceased employee's family a post, much less a
2 of 5
post for a post held by the deceased but to provide relief to the family of a
deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis erupted by his/her premature
death. This relief provides the distressed family immediate succor and financial
assistance to recover from the unexpected deprivation of the income of the sole
breadwinner of the family. It is not one of the sources of engagement of
employees.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana; (1994) 4 SCC 138, has held that appointment on compassionate
ground is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right especially
after passage of substantial time. The relevant extracts of the said judgment
read as:-
"2. The question relates to the considerations which should
guide while giving appointment in public services on
compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good
deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the
public services should be made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of
appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither
the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to
follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down
by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is
to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions
carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain
contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants
of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury
and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact
that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made
in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting compassionate
3 of 5
employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden
crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further,
mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family
to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public
authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of
the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but
for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to
meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member
of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts
in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can
be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve
the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the
emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by
making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it
is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such
dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given
by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered
in this connection that as against the destitute family of the
deceased there are millions of other families which are equally,
if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of
the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the
services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and
the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by
the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned."
8. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in "Canara Bank vs.
Ajithkumar G.K.", 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 has adverted to issue of
compassionate appointment. The Apex Court, with respect to compassionate
appointment, has reiterated 26 principles laid down in different judgments
including Umesh Nagpal (supra). The Court has made it clear that gap between
the date of death and claim for appointment should be kept in mind because
with the efflux of time need to offer compassionate appointment obliterates.
4 of 5
9. In the case in hand, petitioner's husband passed away on
31.10.2003 in harness. She filed application seeking appointment on
compassionate ground in December' 2003. She approached this court in 2015.
A period of more than 22 years from the date of death of the employee has
passed away. No object of concept of compassionate appointment except job
to petitioner is going to be achieved if respondent is directed to offer
appointment letter. Compassionate appointment cannot be source of
recruitment. Recruitment to public offices is contemplated and guided by
principles laid down in Constitution of India. Appointment of petitioner would
certainly deny post to someone who may be more needy and deserving, thus,
direction to respondent to offer appointment letter to petitioner may result in
violation of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent
considered case of petitioner as per applicable policy, however, she could not
be appointed due to lack of vacancies. Any order of this Court to respondent to
issue appointment letter to petitioner would be contrary to the policy and object
of the Scheme.
10. Considering the above-referred judgments and the fact that a
substantial period from the date of death of the employee has passed away, this
Court does not find it appropriate to direct the respondents to offer appointment
letter to the petitioner on the compassionate ground. In the backdrop, petition
deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
20.01.2026
SDK
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
