Dismissed¶20

Ankit v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2025LPA/1124/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: compassionate appointment; delayed claim; 21 years after death of employee; minor son of deceased employee; widow declined appointment offer; ex-gratia 2,50,000 accepted; not a vested right but a concession; sudden difficulty / sole bread earner; claim within reasonable time; LPA dismissed; pending applications disposed. Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. (oral) with Rohit Kapoor, J.; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; decision dated 13 August 2025.

What did the court decide?

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession granted by the employer only to tide over the sudden difficulty faced by the family due to the death of the sole bread earner; therefore a claim made on the ground that the appellant was then a minor cannot be entertained. ¶13

Ankit Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment, instituted 21 years after the death of the deceased employee where the widow had declined the offer and accepted ex-gratia, can be entertained. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The considerations germane for the grant of compassionate appointment would not subsist after 21 years.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

¶13

Key takeaways

If the widow was keen on availing compassionate appointment she ought to have made the claim within a reasonable time; the mere allegation that the ex-gratia amount was credited to her account after three years is not a ground for the appellant to seek compassionate appointment after such a long time.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA-1124-2025 (O&M) (Punjab & Haryana HC, Chandigarh; decided 13.08.2025; Coram: Ashwani Kumar Mishra & Rohit Kapoor JJ.) — Oral dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal against the learned Single Bench's rejection of the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment, the claim having been instituted after 21 years of the death of the deceased employee (d. 2003). Held: (i) compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession granted by the employer only to tide over the sudden difficulty faced by the family due to the death of the sole bread earner, so a claim based on the appellant's minority at the time of death cannot be entertained; (ii) considerations germane for grant of such appointment do not subsist after 21 years; (iii) the widow having declined the offered appointment and accepted ex-gratia of `2,50,000/-, her alleged failure to opt and the alleged three-year delay in crediting the ex-gratia are no basis for the son's belated claim. Pending applications disposed of accordingly.

¶1

110

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

LPA-1124-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13^th August, 2025

¶4

ANKIT .…...Appellant(s)

¶5

V/s.

¶6

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .. ....Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

¶8

Present Ms. Diksha, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶9

¶10

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

¶11

1. The claim for compassionate appointment of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Single Bench after noticing the facts of the case as per which the claim itself was instituted after 21 years of death of the deceased employee.

¶12

2. Though various submissions are raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the factual finding returned by the learned Single Bench that the claim for compassionate appointment by the appellant was instituted after 21 years remain undisputed.

¶13

3. It has otherwise come on record that after the death of employee in the year 2003, the wife of the deceased was offered compassionate appointment which she did not avail. Instead, she accepted ex-gratia amount of `2,50,000/-. The claim, for compassionate appointment, made by the appellant on the ground that he was then minor, cannot be entertained inasmuch as compassionate appointment is not a vested right but is a concession granted by the employer only to tide over

¶14

SURESH KUMAR 2025.08.20 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

LPA-1124-2025 (O&M)

¶16

Page 2 of 2

¶17

the sudden difficulty faced by the family due to the death of the sole bread earner.

¶18

4. Considerations germane for grant of such appointment would not subsist after 21 years.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s mother had not opted for the ex-gratia amount and only wanted job to be given to her. This plea is noticed only to be rejected inasmuch as if the widow was keen in availing the compassionate appointment, a claim ought to have been made by her within a reasonable time. That however was not to be the case here. Merely because the ex-gratia amount was credited in her account after three years, as is alleged, that also will not be a ground for the appellant to come with a case for grant of a compassionate appointment after such a long time.

¶20

6. In such view of the matter, the LPA is dismissed .

¶21

7. All pending applications, if any, in this case are disposed of accordingly.

¶22

[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] JUDGE

¶23

[ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE

¶24

August 13, 2025

¶25

Ess Kay