Punjab and Haryana High Court – Compassionate Appointment Denied for Lack of Dependency and Delay
Case Name: Pankaj Sharma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & others
Citation: CWP No. 37614 of 2019
Date of Judgment: 6 January 2020
Bench: Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment, holding that the petitioner was not a dependent of the deceased employee as per the Deputy Commissioner’s certificate and that his earlier claim had already been rejected in 2012. The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is neither a vested right nor a mode of recruitment, but an exception meant to relieve families in financial destitution, and must be sought in close proximity to the employee’s death.
Summary: The petitioner’s father, employed with PUNSUP, Bathinda, died in harness on 1.5.2011. Soon thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. However, a certificate dated 19.7.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner recorded that the petitioner was not a dependent on his father. Based on this, an order dated 23.4.2012 declined his request. The petitioner did not challenge these orders.
Subsequently, in 2018, he again reiterated his claim, which was rejected by order dated 25.1.2018. He challenged this order in the present writ petition, arguing that a 2017 communication of the Deputy Commissioner had dispensed with the requirement of a dependency certificate, and that his married status should not bar consideration if unemployed.
The Court rejected the contention, noting that the petitioner’s claim was conclusively declined in 2012 and that the 2017 circular had no retrospective bearing. The compassionate appointment scheme dated 21.11.2002 required proof of dependency and indigence. Since the petitioner had already been held not to be dependent on his father, the claim could not be sustained. Further, compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, and the objective of immediate relief to a destitute family could not be invoked after such a long lapse of time.
Decision: Finding no infirmity in the departmental order and no subsisting right in favour of the petitioner, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.