The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 and clarified the distinction between compassionate financial assistance and compassionate appointment. 

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that the Rules of 2019 create two separate relief mechanisms—compassionate financial assistance and compassionate appointment. The Court noted that these benefits are separately defined, governed by different eligibility provisions, application procedures and competent authorities. 

The case arose after the death of a government school teacher, Gajender Singh Chauhan, in September 2021. Following his death, his widow was accused of conspiring in his murder and was prosecuted under Section 302 IPC. As a result, authorities refused to process claims for compassionate benefits and later kept the son’s request for compassionate appointment in abeyance until the criminal proceedings reached finality. 

Although the widow was later acquitted by the trial court, an appeal against her acquittal remained pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On this basis, the Haryana authorities and subsequently the High Court held that compassionate benefits could not be granted until the criminal litigation concluded. 

The principal question before the Court was whether Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, which suspends compassionate financial assistance where a family member is accused of murdering or abetting the murder of a government employee, could also be applied to deny or postpone compassionate appointment. 

According to the Court, Rule 23(1) repeatedly refers only to “compassionate financial assistance” and its heading itself is confined to regulation of financial assistance in cases involving criminal proceedings. Since the rule nowhere mentions compassionate appointment, extending its operation to appointment claims would amount to judicial legislation rather than interpretation. 

The Court categorically held that “Rule 23(1) applies only to claims for compassionate financial assistance. It does not, by its text or by any permissible process of interpretation, extend to a claim for compassionate appointment.” 

The Supreme Court also disagreed with the High Court’s finding that the widow’s claim had to be conclusively determined before the son’s claim could be considered.

The Court explained that while the Rules create a strict hierarchy for compassionate financial assistance through repeated use of the phrase “failing” in successive categories of beneficiaries, no such sequential hierarchy exists in the provision governing compassionate appointment. Therefore, children are not automatically barred from seeking appointment merely because the widow is alive or her claim remains unresolved. 

Importantly, the widow and the appellant’s brother had filed affidavits relinquishing their claims in favour of the appellant. The Court observed that the authorities and the High Court failed to give due effect to those declarations. 

While granting relief, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal principle that compassionate appointment is not a hereditary or vested right. It is a welfare measure intended to alleviate sudden financial hardship caused by the death of a government employee and remains subject to fulfilment of all eligibility conditions prescribed under the governing rules. 

However, the Court emphasized that the State cannot deny such benefits by relying on provisions that do not actually apply to the relief sought. 

In a noteworthy observation, the Court pointed out a legislative gap in the Haryana Rules.

It noted that compassionate financial assistance—a comparatively smaller benefit—is expressly suspended when a beneficiary is accused of murdering the deceased employee. However, the Rules contain no corresponding provision suspending compassionate appointment, which is a far more substantial benefit involving permanent public employment, salary, pension and other service advantages. 

The Bench described this as an anomaly and suggested that the Haryana Government consider amending the Rules to address the issue. Nevertheless, it clarified that courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions to fill perceived gaps. 

Although the appellant had challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1), the Supreme Court upheld the provision. The Court held that the rule is preventive and regulatory in nature, has a rational nexus with its objective of preventing benefits from flowing to persons who may be responsible for the employee’s death, and therefore does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. 

However, the Court stressed that constitutional validity does not expand the scope of the provision beyond what its language permits. 

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment and directed the Haryana Government to consider and decide the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment within three months. The Court specifically ordered that the claim must be examined on its own merits and without being influenced by Rule 23(1), which has no application to compassionate appointment. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Falling Tree Branch Not Motor Accident, Yet Victim Awarded ₹25 Lakh Compensation: Supreme Court