Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonu vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 October, 2025
1
CWP-28158
28158-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
259 CWP
CWP-28158-2023
Date of Decision: October 29,, 2025
Sonu ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Robin Dutt,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vishan Singh Chauhan,, Advocate for respondent
respondent-
UHBVNL.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 24.10.2023 (Annexure P P-7)
7) passed by respondent pondent No.4 whereby it was stated that the application for compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the instructions dated 02.08.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the father of the petitioner was working with the respondent respondent-UHBVNL UHBVNL as CKD and died in harness on 23.06.2017 at the age of 41 years. At that time, the petitioner was 17 years and 6 months old. attaining majority, the petitioner 1 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:21 ::: 2 CWP-28158 28158-2023 immediately applied for a job on compassionate grounds, however, neither a job was granted nor any reply was provided. During the pendency of the correspondence, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam adopted the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure P-3) P 3) (hereinafter 'Rules of 2019' 2019')) notified on 02.08.2019.
The said Rules contain a saving clause stipulating that the family of government employees who died before the date of notification of the Rules but were not sanctioned compassionate financial assistance by the competent authority,, may exercise an option within a period of 06 months, deciding whether they want to avail benefits of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter 'Rules of 2006) or the Rules of 2019. As such, the Rules of 2006 do not act as a bar on compassionate appointment.
3. Learned counsel further submits that when no action was taken, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 16.01.2021 (Annexure P P-4)
4) pursuant to which, the respondents raised an objection and asked for an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner and his siblings forego the claim for family pension and arrears. The requisite affidavit was also furnished, a copy of which is available at Annexure P P-5.
5. Aggrieved by the lack of decision ision on part of the respondents, the mother of the petitioner moved a representation requesting for the case of the petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment. Without examining the request, respondent No.4 passed impugned order dated 24.10.2023 24.10.2023 (Annexure P P-7)
7) stating that 2 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 3 CWP-28158 28158-2023 the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the Rules of 2019.
4. Per contra learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that the mother of the petitioner applied for co compassionate mpassionate financial assistance in the year 2017, which was provided vide office order dated 26.10.2017 in terms of Rules of 2006. While applying for financial assistance, the petitioner and his sister submitted an affidavit (Annexure R-
R
1), duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, stating that as major members of the family of the deceased, they forego their claim to all pensionary benefits and the same be paid to their mother only. Since compassionate assistance has already been provided to the mother ooff the deceased in terms of Rules of 106, which does not contain provisions for compassionate appointment, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner has remained undecided. Therefore, the provisions of Rules of 2019 would not apply to the case at hand.
hand. Lastly, the petitioner has raised a claim for compassionate appointment after about 04 years from the death of his father father- deceased employee, and is therefore, also barred by delay and laches.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the father of the petitioner died on 23.06.2017 while he was still in service. It appears that the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment in terms of Rules of 2019. However, at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the Rules of 2006 were in force, which provide for financial assistance on compassionate grounds, but 3 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 4 CWP-28158 28158-2023 not appointment. The benefits of Rules of 2019 can only be availed by a party who is otherwise governed by the Rules of 2006 if his claim remains undecided by the competent authority before the date of notification of the former.
6. Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner has already received compassionate financial assistance since the death of her husband in harness, ass also discernible from office order No. 389 dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure P-
P
2). As such, the benefits of Rules of 2006 have already been released to the mother of the petitioner. In this regard, as major legal heirs of the deceased, the petitioner and his sister sister also furnished an affidavit (Annexure R R-1)
1) attested by an Executive Magistrate whereby they have relinquished their claim to any pensionary benefits and stated that the same be released to their mother only.
7. It is settled law that compassionate ap appointment pointment is a concession and not a right. Notably, a claim towards compassionate employment can only be made if the applicable Rules or instructions provide for it. The sole purpose behind providing this concession is to ensure that the family of the deceased ased or medically incapacitated employee is not rendered destitute upon his sudden death or incapacitation. Furthermore, such appointment may only be made in view of financial reasons which must be understood as foreseeable poverty due to demise or incapac incapacitation itation of the breadwinner and not a mere change in standard in life. Since it allows for a side side-door door entry, the Rules concerning compassionate appointment are to be interpreted 4 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 5 CWP-28158 28158-2023 strictly. As such, demise/incapacitation in itself would not be enough to ensure re recruitment and all parameters laid down therein must necessarily be satisfied. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tinku vs. State of 3292, whe Haryana 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292, wherein, rein, speaking through Justice A.G. Masih, the following as held:
"11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle itle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against inst the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right sanction. Equity cannot be or a claim that does not have legal san extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.
12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee
5 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 6 CWP-28158 28158-2023 who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate ompassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment.
13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted."
(emphasis added)
8. Further still, Further, a two two-Judge Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K.2025 AIR SC 1232 , dealt with the matter in extenso and speaking tthrough hrough Justice Dipankar Datta, laid down the following:
"Judicial Judicial Precedents On The Issue of Compassionate Appointment xxx xxx xxx
11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for uuss to consider certain well-settled well settled principles, which have crystallized 6 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 7 CWP-28158 28158-2023 through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order):
a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an excepti exception on to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475 475].
b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Boar Board d v.
Krishna Devi, (2002) 10 SCC 246 246].
c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical inval invalidation idation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India, (2008) 13 SCC 730].
d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated empl employee oyee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468 468].
e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side-door door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, (2009) 11 SCC 453].
f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfie satisfied d by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560].
560].
7 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 8 CWP-28158 28158-2023
g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600].
h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical tto o our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209].
i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India v. Amrita Sinha, (2021) 20 SCC 695].
j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that at the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time me and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar, (2009) 13 SCC 112].
k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making 8 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 9 CWP-28158 28158-2023 compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of o Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138].
l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for re relief lief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality guarant guaranteed eed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore, (2011) 13 SCC 131].
m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162].
n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such ddistress istress is not enough;
the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545].
o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192].
p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not 9 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 10 CWP-28158 28158-2023 otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara Ba Bank (supra)].
q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directlyy in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481].
r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered [see Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh, (1998) 5 SCC 452].
s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of "not very well well-to-do".
do".
[see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271].
t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch aass in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-
dying in- harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487 and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 265].
10 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 11 CWP-28158 28158-2023 u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of fami family ly from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)].
v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme cheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL, (2000) 6 SCC 493 493] w) The fixation of an income slab is, in ffact, act, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in tthe he process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653].
x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 718].
y) Courtss cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571].
z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma, (2007) 8 SCC 148].
11 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 12 CWP-28158 28158-2023 It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the decisions referred to above are by coordi coordinate nate benches of two Judges."
9. Lastly, the concession of compassionate appointment must be provided as early as possible to mitigate the financial distress set to take effect with the demise/incapacitation of the employee. Therefore, the claimant ought to apply for the same within a reasonable period. In Canara Bank(supra), the following was observed in this regard:
Bank(supra), "27. Lapse of time could, however, be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly. A presumption n is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. However, what would be a reasonable time would largely depend on the policy/scheme for compassionate assionate appointment under consideration. If any time limit has been prescribed for making an application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection." (emphasis added)
10. In view of the discussion ssion above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right, especially when the Rules of 2006 do not provide for it. In any case, the family of the deceased cannot be allowed to take benefit of both financial assistance as well as appointment on compassionate grounds.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
12 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 ::: 13 CWP-28158 28158-2023
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE October 29, 29 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No 13 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 04:51:22 :::