Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards ₹7.5 Lakh Compensation to Disabled Lineman’s Son; Terms Department’s 20-Year Delay in Compassionate Appointment “Administrative Apathy”

Case Name: Pankaj Kumar v. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: CWP-22548-2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court castigated the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVNL) for its “unwarranted and insensitive apathy” in denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner, son of a 100% disabled lineman injured in a work-related accident, despite a written assurance at the time of his father’s medical retirement in 2001. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the applicable ex-gratia policies of 1992 and 1995 were in force at the time of the accident and retirement, and the later 2003 policy—omitting such appointments—could not be applied retrospectively. Citing State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157 and Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana (2012) 2 SCT 736, the Court ruled that compassionate claims must be decided as per the policy prevailing on the date of death or disability, not a subsequent one.

Summary: The petitioner’s father, a lineman with UHBVNL, suffered a 100% disability due to electrocution while on duty in 1999. He was prematurely retired in 2001 after being assured that his son would be appointed under the ex-gratia scheme. However, the department rejected the petitioner’s claim in 2004 citing the new 2003 policy, which excluded dependents of disabled employees. The Court found that the delay in decision-making and subsequent policy change could not prejudice the petitioner’s rights. Justice Brar strongly condemned bureaucratic indifference and mechanical handling of compassionate appointment cases, observing that “administrative machinery must function as the custodian of human dignity, fairness, and responsive governance.” The Bench also condoned the filing delay, noting the family’s persistent efforts and financial hardship over two decades.

Decision: The Court held the denial of appointment unjustified and awarded ₹7,50,000 compensation to the petitioner with 6% annual interest from the date of filing (September 25, 2017) till realization. It declared the case a “classic example of administrative apathy,” directing the UHBVNL to release payment within two months of receiving the certified order.