Court Upholds Strict Adherence to Policy, Emphasizing Financial Condition and Dependency as Key Factors
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Sukhwinder Kaur, a married daughter seeking compassionate appointment following her father's death while in service. The court, presided over by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, emphasized that compassionate appointments are not rights but concessions meant to alleviate immediate financial distress of the family of deceased employees.
The case, cited as "Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab," involved the petitioner's appeal against the rejection of her claim for a compassionate appointment by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). The impugned order, dated October 6, 2025, denied her request based on her marital status, the income of her husband, and the existence of other siblings, who could potentially support the family.
The court highlighted that the primary objective of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate relief from financial hardship following the death of the sole breadwinner in a family. The judgment reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, asserting that such appointments are exceptions to normal recruitment processes and are governed by strict adherence to policy guidelines.
Citing several Supreme Court judgments, including "Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi" and "SAIL v. Madhusudan Das," the court underscored the necessity for a thorough evaluation of the family's financial condition, dependency, and genuine need for support. The court found that the petitioner's circumstances did not meet the stringent criteria required for compassionate appointments.
The judgment pointed out that the petitioner had not demonstrated immediate financial distress, as her husband was employed in a government position with a substantial income, and she had siblings who could contribute to the family's welfare. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner lived separately from her widowed mother, casting doubt on her dependency and the extent of the family's financial crisis.
The court also took into account the significant delay in pursuing the claim, as the petitioner's father passed away in 2001, and the claim was intermittently pursued over two decades later. This delay, the court observed, undermined the immediacy of the financial crisis, further weakening the case for compassionate appointment.
In conclusion, the court's decision reaffirms the necessity for strict compliance with established policies governing compassionate appointments, emphasizing that such concessions are meant to address immediate financial needs and are not avenues for guaranteed employment. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of evaluating each case on its individual merits, taking into consideration all socio-economic factors.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, granted strictly in adherence to the applicable policy. The financial condition of the family, dependency, and other socio-economic factors must be evaluated to determine eligibility.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2827197
