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
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
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
OTHER
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2019 | OTHER |
Orders
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.
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