Dismissed¶¶23

Akhil v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Oct 2025CWP/20342/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; death in harness; belated claim after eight years; Article 226/227 Constitution of India; Article 309; mandamus; dismissal for want of prosecution; non-appearance of petitioner; virtual window; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CWP-20342-2025; Akhil versus State of Haryana and Others; Progress Assistant Rewari; representation dated 03.01.2025; Sandeep Moudgil J.

What did the court decide?

The lapse of eight years between the employee's death on 26.10.2017 and the filing of the petition was sufficient to infer that no financial need existed as on date and that the claim was highly belated. ¶¶21

Akhil Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

107

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-20342-2025 DECIDED ON: 10.09.2025

AKHIL

.....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶8

.....RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

¶10

Present: None

¶11

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

¶12

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider one family member of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment who died in harness on 26.10.2017, while in service should have retrospective effect as per the policy framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India along with consequential benefits in view of law laid down by this Hon'ble High Court in various judgments as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶13

Although a request was made in the morning to take up the matter through hybrid mode but no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, despite the virtual window being kept open.

¶14

In the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on account of death of his father on 26.10.2017. It is averred that the

¶15

MEENU 2025.09.11 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-20342-2025

¶17

-2-

¶18

deceased was working on the post of Progress Assistant and was lastly posted at Rewari.

¶19

This petition came up for hearing on 06.08.2025, however, the petitioner was not available for assisting the Court and similar was the situation on 21.07.2025, wherein a request for adjournment was made by Mr. Tejpal Singh Dhull, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Yadav. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶20

Perusal of the record shows that the father of the petitioner died on 26.10.2017 almost 8 years prior to the filing of instant petition and for the first time, a representation seems to have been moved on 03.01.2025, which is on record at Annexure P-1.

¶21

The above-said fact and the lapse of 8 years is sufficient enough to infer that no financial harness exist as on date and the claim made in the instant petition is highly belated. It is with the fact that the petitioner is un-represented consistently.

¶22