Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Compassionate Appointment After 22 Years; Holds Scheme Cannot Be Used as Alternate Mode of Recruitment
Case Name: Daljit Kaur v. Chandigarh Administration and Others
Date of Decision: 20 January 2026
Citation: CWP-1548-2015
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging rejection of compassionate appointment, holding that compassionate employment is a concession and not a vested right, and cannot be claimed after a long lapse of time. The Court held that once the immediate financial crisis has passed and the claim is raised decades after the death of the employee, no direction for compassionate appointment can be issued as it would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Summary: The petitioner sought compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband, who was working as a Gardener (Mali) with the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, died in harness on 31.10.2003. She applied for compassionate appointment in December 2003 and her name was included in the list of eligible candidates. However, due to non-availability of vacancies within the prescribed 5% quota earmarked for compassionate appointments, she could not be appointed.
As per the applicable policy, names of eligible candidates were retained for three years. Upon expiry of this period, the petitioner’s name was deleted from the list in 2007. The petitioner approached the High Court in 2015, contending that similarly situated candidates had been considered even after the lapse of three or five years and that deletion of her name was arbitrary.
The Chandigarh Administration opposed the petition, submitting that compassionate appointments were governed by a strict quota and policy framework, that all selected candidates were senior to the petitioner, and that no discrimination was practiced. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was already working with the Administration through an outsourced agency.
The High Court reiterated the settled law that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee to tide over sudden financial distress, and not to provide employment as a matter of course. Relying on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and the recent decision in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., the Court emphasised that with the passage of time, the very basis for compassionate appointment stands eroded.
The Court observed that more than 22 years had elapsed since the death of the employee, and directing appointment at this stage would defeat the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment and unfairly deprive more deserving candidates.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the decision of the Chandigarh Administration rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, holding that no interference was warranted in view of the long delay, policy constraints, and settled legal principles governing compassionate employment.