SATNAM SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CWP/15158/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section Article 14 and 16. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 15-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010822662026

e-Filing Number

12-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/29895/2026

Filing Date

13-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/15158/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Namit Kumar

Coram

Mr. Justice Namit Kumar

Category

27.1 - COMPASSIONATE PUNJAB ( 498 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section Article 14 and 16

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATNAM SINGH

    Adv. GURAVTAR SINGH MANN

  2. 2.State of Punjab and others

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

  2. 2.State of Punjab and others

  3. 3.DGP Punjab

  4. 4.DIG

  5. 5.SSP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Namit KumarView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP-15158-2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Satnam Singh's petition challenging the rejection of his compassionate appointment claim following his father's death in service in 2016. The court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a temporary measure to address immediate financial crisis, and cannot be entertained after unreasonable delay—here, the petitioner waited over 10 years to file the writ petition, by which time the purpose of the scheme had been defeated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/15158/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP-15158-2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Satnam Singh's petition challenging the rejection of his compassionate appointment claim following his father's death in service in 2016. The court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a temporary measure to address immediate financial crisis, and cannot be entertained after unreasonable delay—here, the petitioner waited over 10 years to file the writ petition, by which time the purpose of the scheme had been defeated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case