Compassionate appointment is not a vested right; the policy prevalent at the time of the employee's death governs the claim, and subsequent policies cannot be applied retrospectively, especially when the family has already accepted financial assistance under the previous policy.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the order dated 23.04.24 (Annexure P-15); whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of his deceased father i.e. Late Head Constable Baljit Singh in Haryana Police was rejected. The petitioner is major and his late father appointed with Haryana Police had completed the qualifying period as per the Notification of Haryana Government bearing HARYANA GOVT. GAZ., MARCH 4, 2003 (PHGN 13,1924 SAKA) required for the purposes of compassionate ground appointment for one of the eligible member of his dependent family and in the present case, the petitioner is real son and eligible for compassionate appointed against the death of his father during active service period.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner, namely, Late Constable Baljit Singh was employed in Haryana Police on 27.11.2003 as evident from his ID Card (Annexure P-1) and Result Card (Annexure P-2). Father of the petitioner had expired while still in Service on 28.01.2014 as evident from Death Certificate dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure P-3). LRs of Late Constable Baljit Singh are mentioned in Family Identity Card dated 06.01.2023 issued by CRID (Annexure P-4) being widow Paramjit Kaur; petitioner Ajay; and Yash, brother of the petitioner/second son of Late Baljit Singh. Learned counsel submits that on the date of filing of the present Writ Petition, petitioner was 20 years of age. He is 12th pass and is currently pursuing gradua Learned counsel further submits that after attaining age of majority, petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment upon the death of his father. In this regard, petitioner had moved various representations including Representations dated 25.10.2022 (Annexure P-13) and 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-14) for compassionate appointment. However, vide impugned order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-15), claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, the 2006 Rules were applicable in which there was no provision to provide compassionate appointment to dependents of the deceased employee.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he said reasoning is palpably incorrect and is in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-9281-2014 as N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and others , decided on 04.03.2020; wherein it has been held that “norms that are in force when the application is actually considered, will be applicable.” It is accordingly argued that petitioner shall be governed by the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2019’).

4. It is accordingly prayed that present Writ Petition be allowed; and petitioner be granted compassionate appointment.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions of the petitioner and submitted that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, Haryana Compassionate Financial Assistance Rules, 2006 (herein referred to as ‘Rules, 2006’) were applicable in which there was no provision to provi