Dismissed¶21

Sanjay Kumar v. Canara Bank and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2025CWP/11586/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; Canara Bank; rejection letter 28.09.2017; father's death 22.11.2015; penury/financial condition test; Civil Suit No.3377 of 2018 Karnal; withdrawal of suit with liberty; forum shopping; belated writ approach (~8 years); delay and laches; writ petition dismissed; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.; CWP-11586-2025 (O&M); decision 20.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

The contention of learned counsel that the 2018 civil suit was withdrawn on account of delay in its adjudication was held misconceived, since the suit was already fixed for arguments before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Karnal, suggesting the withdrawal anticipated an undesired result. ¶19

Sanjay Kumar Vs Canara Bank and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the letter dated 28.09.2017 of respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment after his father's demise on 22.11.2015 (on the ground that the family's finances were reasonable and it was not in penury) could be successfully challenged in this writ petition. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

¶19

Key takeaways

The withholding of information (including the copy of the plaint) and the withdrawal of the suit reflected the petitioner's intent; the case appeared to be one of forum shopping — abandoning the Civil Court and approaching the High Court at a belated stage, nearly eight years after the rejection of the compassionate appointment claim.ratio¶19
For the aforesaid reasons, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral) — CWP-11586-2025 dismissed. The petition challenged respondent No.2's letter dated 28.09.2017 rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment after his father's demise on 22.11.2015, on the ground that the family's financial condition was reasonable and not in penury. The Court noted that the petitioner had instituted Civil Suit No.3377 of 2018 before the Civil Court at Karnal, which — though already fixed for arguments as per order dated 27.02.2025 — was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh; the plea that withdrawal was caused by adjudicatory delay was found misconceived, and the withdrawal, coupled with withholding of the plaint, was treated as forum shopping at a belated stage (nearly eight years after rejection). Declining to entertain the petition, the Court dismissed it.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

107

¶3

CWP-11586-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.05.2025

¶4

Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Canara Bank and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶9

Present :- Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶10

Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate for the respondent(s)-Bank.

¶11

¶12

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶13

Challenge in the present petition is to the letter dated 28.09.2017 issued by respondent No.2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment after demise of his father on 22.11.2015 has been rejected on the ground that the financial conditions of the family were reasonable and the family was not in penury.

¶14

The petitioner is stated to have filed a civil suit in the year 2018 before the Civil Court at Karnal. The copy of the plaint has not been appended by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the instant writ petition to demonstrate as to what was the nature of the civil suit that was so instituted. Be that as it may, he has appended a copy of the order dated 27.02.2025 passed in the aforesaid Civil Suit No.3377 of 2018 titled ‘Sanjay Kumar Vs. Canara Bank etc.’ which shows that the case was then fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, otherwise for arguments on that day. The said order does not reflect that any rebuttal evidence was to be examined by the

¶15

MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.21 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

¶17

107 CWP-11586-2025 (O&M)

¶18

petitioner. A fresh power of attorney was filed on behalf of the petitioner (plaintiff therein) and the aforesaid civil suit was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Civil Suit. Liberty was however granted subject to law of limitation and other Rules prescribed in this regard in accordance with law.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the said civil suit has been withdrawn on account of delay that had taken place in adjudication thereof, however, I find that the aforesaid contention is misconceived since the said civil suit was already fixed for arguments before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Karnal. It seems to be more plausible that anticipating the suit being dismissed, the petitioner-plaintiff withdrew the same with liberty to file a fresh suit before the Civil Court. The withholding of the information including the copy of the plaint reflects the intent of the petitioner. It seems to be a case of Forum shopping and not expecting a desired relief from the Civil Court, the same was withdrawn to approach this Court at this belated stage i.e. after nearly 08 years of order of rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment.

¶20

For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any reasons to entertain the instant writ petition.

¶21

The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 20.05.2025 JUDGE Mangal Singh

¶23

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶24

MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.21 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sanjay Kumar v. Canara Bank and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. Canara Bank and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtar Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Atter Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Yad Ram Vs State of Haryana and Others

Balinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Satbir Vs State of Haryana and Others