LAKHWINDER SINGH vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR. — CWP/7440/2019

Case under No Acts Defined Section 1. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

CNR: PHHC010362862019

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

18th March 2019

Filing Number

CWP/19375/2019

Filing Date

15-03-2019

Registration No

CWP/7440/2019

Registration Date

16-03-2019

Judge

MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Coram

MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Bench Type

Single

Category

20.27 - SCOSB UOI ( 459 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

14th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined Section 1

Petitioner(s)

LAKHWINDER SINGH

Adv. BALBIR SINGH SEWAK

Respondent(s)

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

ZONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Hearing History

Judge: MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

18-03-2019

OTHER

Orders

14-05-2026
MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Lakhwinder Singh's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment at Punjab National Bank as a dependent of his deceased father. The court held that the claim was barred by the one-year limitation period under the 1997 scheme in force at the time of death (2003), as no application was made within the stipulated timeframe or even within four years; the petitioner's first representation came 13 years later in 2016. The court affirmed that compassionate appointment is a concession for immediate financial relief, not a vested right claimable after considerable delay, and that later schemes cannot be applied retrospectively to revive expired claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Lakhwinder Singh's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment at Punjab National Bank as a dependent of his deceased father. The court held that the claim was barred by the one-year limitation period under the 1997 scheme in force at the time of death (2003), as no application was made within the stipulated timeframe or even within four years; the petitioner's first representation came 13 years later in 2016. The court affirmed that compassionate appointment is a concession for immediate financial relief, not a vested right claimable after considerable delay, and that later schemes cannot be applied retrospectively to revive expired claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case