Petitioners sought compassionate appointment following the father's death, but the father had taken voluntary retirement in 1986 and died in 1994, so he was not a serving employee at the time of death. The court held the claim, raised nearly 30 years later, could not be accepted at such a belated stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:PHHC:048404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
203
CWP-14987-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.04.2024
PARDIP KUMAR AND ANR.
… PETITIONERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: None.
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
to counsel for the parties, however there is no representation.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE
09.04.2024 anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
Anju Goel 2024.04.10 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a claim for compassionate appointment made decades after the father's death, when the father was not an employee at the time of death, can be entertained.
Pardip Kumar and Anr.
Union of India
Jagmohan Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
