118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON:29.10.2025 SUNITA DEVI AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

*****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. By virtue of the instant petition the petitioners are seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) vide which, their request seeking compassionate appointment has been declined. Further prayer has been made to appoint petitioner No.2-son of petitioner No.1 on compassionate grounds under the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (“2019 Rules”).

2. It is not disputed that the father of Petitioner No. 2, namely Shri Bani Singh, was a Government servant (constable) recruited on 01.12.1988 and died in harness on 11.02.2013. It is also admitted that Petitioner No. 1 (wife) i.e., Sunita Devi, applied under the earlier Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Employees Rules, 2006 (“2006 Rules”) and received monthly financial assistance/ex gratia benefit under that scheme (Annexure P-1).

3. Thereafter, the 2019 Rules came into force on 01.08.2019. An application by Petitioner No. 2 seeking appointment under the 2019 Rules was filed but was rejected by the competent authority by order dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that since the family had already taken benefit under the 2006 Rules, the claim under the 2019 Rules was not maintainable.

4. The legal issue for determination is whether Petitioner No. 2 is eligible for appointment under the 2019 Rules, given that the family has already taken benefits under the earlier 2006 Rules.

5. ASI Bani Singh (Husband of Petitioner No.1 and Father of Petitioner No.2) expired on 11.02.2013 and his family got financial assistance as per prevailing Policy. There is no question to extend the benefit of 2019 Policy which was not in vogue at the time of death of the deceased-employee. He could claim benefit if permitted by Policy of 2019, however, there is nothing on record disclosing that a family who has already received benefit as per previous Policy is entitled to benefit of 2019 Policy.

Under the 2019 Rules, section 5 defines “compassionate financial assistance” and “compassionate appointment”. The rules further provide eligibility conditions for compassionate appointment including that the deceased employee must have completed five years’ regular service, etc.

6. In the present case, while Petitioner No. 2 is qualified (having B.Sc. Non-Medical BEd) and his father died in harness having been in service, the family has already availed the benefit of financial assistance under the 2006 Rules. The 2019 Rules do not expressly contemplate a scenario where a family has once taken benefit under earlier compassionate scheme and thereafter again claim appointment under the new rules. The rationale behind compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to dependents from destitution, not to provide multiple rounds of benefit.

7. The law in regard of compassionate appointment is well settled. The Supreme Court in “Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138” has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right of the dependent, but only a concession to alleviate immediate financial crisis caused by the death of an employee in harness. Similarly, the Apex Court in “Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr. (1994) 2 SCC 718”, has reiterated that compassionate appointment must strictly conform to the policy and that belated claims defeat the very purpose of such scheme. Relevant extract of the same is as follows:

“it was indicated that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and conte