The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, which suspends compassionate financial assistance where an eligible family member is accused of murdering a government employee, while clarifying that the provision does not apply to claims for compassionate appointment.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment while allowing an appeal filed by Atul Chauhan, whose application for compassionate appointment had been kept pending because his mother was facing criminal prosecution for allegedly conspiring in the murder of his father, a government school teacher in Haryana.
The Court held that Rule 23(1) is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It observed that the provision serves a legitimate statutory purpose by preventing compassionate financial assistance from being extended to a person who may ultimately be found criminally responsible for the death that gives rise to the claim. According to the Court, the rule is preventive and regulatory in nature rather than punitive and bears a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.
The Bench observed that the provision merely postpones the grant of compassionate financial assistance until criminal proceedings are concluded and does not permanently deprive a claimant of the benefit. It held that a temporary suspension of a statutory concession during the pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be regarded as arbitrary, discriminatory or unconstitutional.
At the same time, the Court clarified that Rule 23(1) cannot be invoked to deny or defer compassionate appointment. It held that the Haryana authorities as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court had erred in applying the provision to Chauhan’s claim for compassionate appointment.
The Court noted that the 2019 Rules maintain a clear distinction between compassionate financial assistance and compassionate appointment. Both forms of relief are separately defined, governed by different eligibility conditions and procedures, and administered by different authorities. Since Rule 23(1) expressly refers only to compassionate financial assistance, its scope cannot be expanded through interpretation to include compassionate appointment.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the Haryana authorities to consider and decide Chauhan’s application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules within three months.
The case arose from the death of Chauhan’s father, Gajender Singh Chauhan, a Junior Basic Teacher in Haryana, who died in September 2021 in what was initially reported as a road accident but was subsequently investigated as a murder case. Chauhan’s mother was later prosecuted on allegations that she had conspired in the murder.
During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the authorities kept the family’s claim for compassionate benefits in abeyance. Although Chauhan’s mother was acquitted in October 2024 after being granted the benefit of doubt, an appeal against the acquittal remains pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Relying on Rule 23(1), the Director of Elementary Education deferred consideration of Chauhan’s request for compassionate appointment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld that decision and further held that the widow had the primary right to seek compassionate benefits and that the son’s claim could be considered only after her entitlement was finally determined.
Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested, hereditary or fundamental right and remains subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed under the governing scheme. However, it emphasised that the State cannot reject or postpone a claim by relying upon provisions that do not apply to the relief sought.
Examining the statutory framework, the Court noted that the heading of Rule 23 specifically refers to regulation of compassionate financial assistance in cases involving criminal proceedings. The provision repeatedly uses the expression compassionate financial assistance and contains no reference to compassionate appointment.
Rejecting the State’s argument that the rule should be interpreted purposively to cover both forms of relief, the Bench held that the language of Rule 23(1) is clear and unambiguous. It observed that purposive interpretation cannot be used to rewrite statutory provisions or introduce words that the rule-making authority has consciously omitted.
The Court held that reading compassionate appointment into Rule 23(1) would amount to judicial legislation rather than permissible statutory interpretation.
The Bench also disagreed with the High Court’s finding that the widow’s claim had to be adjudicated before the son’s application could be considered. Analysing the definitions of family under the 2019 Rules, the Court observed that while the definition applicable to compassionate financial assistance contains a cascading hierarchy through the repeated use of the word “failing”, the corresponding definition governing compassionate appointment contains no such sequential requirement.
According to the Court, Rule 5(1)(g) merely identifies the category of family members eligible for compassionate appointment and does not create an absolute order of preference preventing consideration of another eligible family member.
The Court further noted that Chauhan’s mother and brother had filed affidavits relinquishing their claims in his favour. However, neither the authorities nor the High Court had accorded due consideration to those affidavits.
While upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1), the Supreme Court also highlighted an anomaly in the 2019 Rules. It observed that compassionate financial assistance, which is comparatively a lesser benefit, is expressly suspended during criminal proceedings relating to the employee’s death, whereas compassionate appointment, which results in permanent public employment and long-term service benefits, is not subject to any similar restriction.
The Bench observed that this legislative gap could lead to uncertainty and future litigation and suggested that the Haryana Government may consider amending the Rules to address the issue. However, it clarified that courts cannot fill such legislative gaps by adding words to a statutory provision.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the Haryana authorities were directed to consider Chauhan’s claim for compassionate appointment on its own merits and pass an appropriate decision within three months.
The post Supreme Court upholds Haryana rule on compassionate financial assistance, says it cannot bar compassionate appointment appeared first on India Legal.