1 121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS KRISHNA DEVI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, AAG, Haryana. None for the respondent. HARKESH MANUJA, 1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana and its functionaries (hereinafter referred to as "appellant-State") assailing the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani (herei referred to as "the First Appellate Court"), whereby Civil Appeal No.61 of 2011 preferred by Smt. Krishna Devi (hereinafter referred to as "respondent-plaintiff") was accepted decree dated 16.02.2011 Division), Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") defendants were directed to appoint the plaintiff on compassionate grounds in terms of the Government instructions dated consequential be 2. Briefly stated, the respondent Mahabir Singh, who was working as a T/Mate in the office of Executive Engineer, Lift Water Services Mechanical Division, Bhiwani IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 27, 2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Versus KRISHNA DEVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, AAG, Haryana. None for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana and its functionaries (hereinafter referred to as State") assailing the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani (herei referred to as "the First Appellate Court"), whereby Civil Appeal No.61 of 2011 preferred by Smt. Krishna Devi (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff") was accepted thus setting aside 16.02.2011 passed by the Division), Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") defendants were directed to appoint the plaintiff on compassionate grounds in terms of the Government instructions dated consequential benefits. Briefly stated, the respondent-plaintiff is the widow of late Shri Mahabir Singh, who was working as a T/Mate in the office of Executive Engineer, Lift Water Services Mechanical Division, Bhiwani RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 27, 2026 ........Appellants ........Respondent HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, AAG, Haryana. Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana and its functionaries (hereinafter referred to as State") assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as "the First Appellate Court"), whereby Civil Appeal No.61 of 2011 preferred by Smt. Krishna Devi (hereinafter referred to as thus setting aside the judgment and learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") and the defendants were directed to appoint the plaintiff on compassionate grounds in terms of the Government instructions dated 08.05.1995 with plaintiff is the widow of late Shri Mahabir Singh, who was working as a T/Mate in the office of Executive Engineer, Lift Water Services Mechanical Division, Bhiwani and was a (O&M) Date of Decision: July 27, 2026 Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana and its functionaries (hereinafter referred to as 27.04.2011 nafter referred to as "the First Appellate Court"), whereby Civil Appeal No.61 of 2011 preferred by Smt. Krishna Devi (hereinafter referred to as the judgment and learned Civil Judge (Junior and the defendants were directed to appoint the plaintiff on compassionate with plaintiff is the widow of late Shri Mahabir Singh, who was working as a T/Mate in the office of Executive and was a SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) permanent employee. He died on 03.07.2002, leaving behind the respondent-plaintiff and two minor children. The respondent-plaintiff applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Government instructions dated 08.05.1995. After completion of the requisite formalities, her case was recommended by defendant No.5 to defendant No.3, the competent authority, vide communication dated 16.08.2002. However, no decision was taken on her claim. Ultimately, vide letters dated 22.03.2007 and 17.12.2007, her claim was rejected on the ground that in view of the Haryana Government Gazette Notification dated 01.08.2006, she was not entitled to compassionate appointment and was instead called upon to furnish the requisite documents for release of ex gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-plaintiff instituted the present suit, pleading that her claim was liable to be considered under the policy dated 08.05.1995, which was in force on the date of death of her husband. It was averred that the requisite formalities had been completed within time and, had the authorities processed her application expeditiously, the subsequent policy dated 01.08.2006 would not have become applicable. It was, thus, contended that the defendants could not take advantage of their own delay to deny her compassionate appointment. 3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement raising preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. On merits, it was pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff’s case was initially governed by the ex-gratia scheme existing at the time of death of her husband. Thereafter, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2003 and subsequently the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2005 came into force, under which compassionate SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) appointments were restricted to 5% of the available vacancies and the case of the respondent -plaintiff could not be considered for want of vacancy. It was further pleaded that with the enforcement of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 with effect from 01.08.2006, all pending cases became governed by Rule 6 thereof which is reproduced hereunder: “All pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall be covered under the new rules. The calculation of the period and payment shall be made to such cases from the date of notification of these rules. However the families will have the option to opt for the lump sum ex-gratia grant provided in the Rules, 2003 or 2005 as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly Financial assistance provided under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Defendants of the Deceased Government Employee Rules, 2006.” Reliance was also placed upon Government Memo dated 08.06.2007, clarifying that where the employee had died prior to 01.08.2006 and the Pension Payment Order and Gratuity Payment Order had already been issued, the dependants were entitled only to the lump sum ex gratia amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs and not the benefits under the 2006 Rules. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff was rightly offered ex gratia financial assistance and had no vested right to compassionate appointment therefore, the suit deserved dismissal. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds in place of deceased Mahabir Singh, T/Mate, on the grounds alleged in the plaint? OPP SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Relief.” 5. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2011, dismissed the suit holding that the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled to compassionate appointment; however, the appellants- defendants were directed to consider her case under the 2006 Rules for release of lump sum or monthly financial assistance. 6. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal. The learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2011, allowed the appeal while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and directing the appellants-defendants to appoint the respondent-plaintiff on compassionate grounds in terms of the Government instructions dated 08.05.1995 with effect from the date of institution of the suit, along with all consequential benefits. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE 7. Learned State counsel contends that the learned First Appellate Court erred in directing appointment of the respondent-plaintiff on compassionate grounds under the Government instructions dated 08.05.1995. It is submitted that the respondent-plaintiff’s case was duly processed under the policy then in force, but could not be considered for appointment due to non-availability of vacancies, as compassionate appointments under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 and subsequently the Rules of 2005 were restricted to 5% of the available SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) vacancies. It is further contended that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course, the object of the scheme being only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee. 8. It is further argued that upon the enforcement of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 with effect from 01.08.2006, all pending cases became governed by Rule 6 thereof and, therefore, the respondent- plaintiff was rightly offered the lump sum ex gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Learned counsel thus submits the impugned judgment and decree, being contrary to law, deserve to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of respondent. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant(s)-State and gone through the paper-book. 11. Vide order dated 04.09.2013, this Court while admitting the present appeal, framed following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the Judgment/ decree dated 27.04.2011 passed by learned Ist Appellate court is contrary to facts and law? ii) Whether claim of plaintiff for appointment on compassionate grounds is justifiable in the eyes of law? iii) Whether directions of learned Ist Appellate Court to provide employment to the plaintiff in accordance with the instructions of 1995 and to pay her accordingly, are not against rules and instructions of Government? iv) Whether the judgment/decree passed by learned Ist appellate court is based on perverse findings?” DISCUSSION AND REASONING 12. In the present case, the appellant-plaintiff sought appointment on compassionate grounds consequent upon the death of her husband on SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) 03.07.2002. The said application was duly recommended by defendant No.5 to defendant No.3, the competent authority, vide communication dated 16.08.2002. Despite the recommendation, no decision was taken on her claim within the time contemplated under the prevailing policy. Ultimately, vide communications dated 22.03.2007 and 17.12.2007, the claim came to be rejected on the premise that the State of Haryana had, in the meanwhile, introduced the Compassionate Assistance Rules of 2003, which were subsequently replaced by the Rules of 2005 and thereafter by the Rules of 2006 vide Haryana Government Gazette Notification dated 01.08.2006. On that basis, the plaintiff was held disentitled to compassionate appointment and was instead asked to furnish documents for release of ex gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. 13. The principal question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff's entitlement is required to be examined with reference to the policy prevailing on the date of death of the deceased employee or the policy which came into force during the pendency of her application owing to administrative delay. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled. 13.1 A Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana reported as 2012 (2) S.C.T 736 after examining the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court governing compassionate appointments, authoritatively held that where an application is made promptly after the death of an employee, the claim has to be considered under the policy prevailing on the date of death. The Court further held that an applicant cannot be prejudiced merely because the competent SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) authority failed to take a decision within a reasonable period. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:- “11. In view of above judgment of the apex court and principles laid down therein, it is clear that the employer is within its power to lay down a policy for compassionate employment. It has to strictly adhere to the such policy. Though compassionate employment is in an exception to the general rule, power of the Government or public authority to frame policy to offer compassionate employment has been accepted by the courts in the interest of justice and to meet sudden crisis which befalls the family when an employee dies in harness or is incapacitated. The question whether the policy in operation at the time of death of the employee would be applicable or that at the time of consideration of application would operate, arises for consideration. In Raj Kumar's case (supra) decided by the apex court it was held that there being no vested right for compassionate employment scheme in force at the time application is actually considered would apply, not the scheme in force earlier to said date. Subsequent policy would impliedly abolish the earlier policy. In this case, scheme which was in operation at the time of consideration of the application specifically provided that all pending applications would be considered under the new scheme. In a later judgment in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar's case (supra) the apex court took the view that the scheme in operation at the time of incapacitation of the employee would be applicable and not the scheme framed subsequently. In our considered view date of death of an employee is an important factor to be taken into consideration as schemes for compassionate appointment are floated with a view to provide immediate relief to families of deceased employees to meet the financial crisis they face on death of sole bread winner. Travails of the family begin immediately thereafter. In that context, date of death assumes significance. Purpose of providing SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship at that time. Thus policy applicable on the date of death needs to be invoked to provide immediate relief. Application seeking compassionate appointment should be moved promptly thereafter by his dependent and considered by the employer without undue delay. In case an application is considered by the authority after lapse of time, objective of scheme is defeated. Such schemes which are in the nature of social welfare measure and have been recognised as an exception to the general rule for offering public employment would necessarily be applicable strictly in the parameters laid down therein and accepted by the apex court in its various decisions. Particular reference may be made here to Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors, 1994(3) S.C.T. 174 : (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein it was held that whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis and to save the family from financial destitution. This favourable treatment given to dependent of the deceased employee was accepted as it bore a rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. The Supreme Court held :- "6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 7. It is needless to emphasise that the provisions for compassionate employment have necessarily to be made by the rules or by the executive instructions issued by the Government or SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) the public authority concerned. The employment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis." In view of this clear enunciation of law we cannot but come to the conclusion that rules applicable on the date of death/incapacitation of an employee need to be followed. Needless to observe it is upto the authority to consider the application without inordinate delay and take a decision thereon. In the eventuality application remains pending for considerable period and some other policy comes into operation, no fault can be found on part of the employee. This appears to be the principle recognised by the apex court in its recent judgment in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar's case. As held therein, application for compassionate employment has to be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time as compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis on account of death or invalidation of the bread winner of the family. We, thus, come to the conclusion that in case an application is made by the dependent belatedly or is considered after inordinate delay, basic requirement of meeting the immediate crisis becomes redundant. Since the objective of the policy is to rescue the family from sudden event plunging it into penury, consideration of application after number of years would be beyond the principles accepted by the apex court in its various decisions. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to accept the exception to the general rule of employment as envisaged by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We answer the reference accordingly.” 13.2 The aforesaid principle also stands reinforced by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana reported as2007 (2) S.C.T. 457. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where an applicant had acquired eligibility under the policy existing at the time when the application was submitted, such SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) entitlement could not be defeated merely because the matter remained pending before the authorities and a subsequent policy came into force during the interregnum. The relevant paragraphs no. 5 and 9 are reproduced hereunder:- “5. Appellant herein had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds at a point of time when 2003 Rules were not in existence. His case, therefore, was required to be considered in terms of the Rules which were in existence in the year 2001. Evidently, in the State of Haryana a State-wise list is maintained. In terms of the said list so maintained by the State of Haryana, the appellant was entitled to obtain an appointment on compassionate grounds. He was offered such an appointment by the State. It was the District Magistrate who came on the way and refused to provide for the post. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, we are not inclined to accept the said pleas of respondent No. 4. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Department of Personnel, State of Haryana is directed to issue an appointment letter posting the appellant to any post within the State of Haryana as per his original seniority within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 14. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments leaves no manner of doubt that where an application seeking compassionate appointment is submitted without undue delay, the claim has to be examined in accordance with the policy prevailing on the date of death of the employee. A subsequent change in policy cannot be invoked to the detriment of the claimant solely because of administrative inaction. Equally settled is the principle that an authority cannot be permitted to derive advantage from its own omission or delay so as to defeat a legitimate claim. SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) 15. In the present case, while deciding the appeal, the learned First Appellate Court placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jai Ram v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another reported as 2004 (4) SCT 664. In the said judgment, the Division Bench held that under Clause (vii) of the instructions dated 08.05.1995, every application seeking compassionate appointment was required to be processed and decided within a period of three months. It was further held that the authorities cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own delay by applying a subsequently introduced policy. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder: “8. We are inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. The petitioner had become eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground on the death of his father on 24.8.2002. The necessary application was made on 3.9.2002 (Annexure P-1). It was duly recommended by the competent authorities also. There was no justification as to why the petitioner could not have been appointed within a short period of time. The very purpose of compassionate appointment is to render assistance to the family whose sole bread winner has died. Clause (vii) of the instructions dated 8.5.1995 (Annexure P-5) provides as under :- "(vii) All cases of ex-gratia appointment shall be processed and decided by the Heads of Departments within three months of the receipt of the application." 9. From the above extract of the instructions, it becomes clear that Heads of Department were required to process and decide the claims for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three months. Had the claim of the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) petitioner been considered within three months of the receipt of the application, the 2003 Rules would not have been applicable. These rules were promulgated by a Circular dated 31.3.2003 and were adopted by respondent No. 1 in its meeting held on 26.5.2003. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned order (Annexure P-7) dated 3.10.2003 is liable to be quashed on the short ground that the claim of the petitioner had to be considered under the instructions dated 8.5.1995..….” 16. In the humble opinion of this Court, the reasoning adopted by the learned First Appellate Court is fully in accord with the settled legal position noticed hereinabove. In the present case, immediately after the death of her husband, the plaintiff submitted her application seeking compassionate appointment, which was duly forwarded by the competent authority on 16.08.2002. The Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2003 admittedly came into force thereafter vide gazette notification dated 04.03.2003. Significantly, there existed a gap of more than three months between the forwarding of the plaintiff's application and the promulgation of the said Rules. Had the respondents discharged their obligation of processing and deciding the plaintiff's application within the period prescribed under the prevailing instructions, her claim would necessarily have been considered under the policy existing on the date of death of the deceased employee. The application, however, remained pending solely on account of administrative inaction on the part of the respondents. Such delay, for which the plaintiff was in no manner responsible, cannot be permitted to defeat her claim by compelling the application of a subsequent policy. SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the plaintiff's claim for compassionate appointment was liable to be considered under the policy prevailing on the date of death of the deceased employee and not under the subsequently promulgated Rules. The said finding is fully supported by the ratio of Jai Ram (supra) and stands fortified by the principles enunciated in Krishna Kumari (supra) and Abhishek Kumar (supra). 18. Thus, the order dated 22.03.2007 passed by the appellant rejecting the claim of respondent-plaintiff for compassionate appointment is set aside and the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff is thus decreed and the appellant is directed to decide the claim of the respondent-plaintiff in terms of policy dated 08.03.1995 as applicable on the date of death of husband- respondent-plaintiff. The order of appointment be issued in favour of respondent-plaintiff by creating supernumerary post. In case respondent- plaintiff has attained the age of superannuation, she should be paid 50% of the arrears of salary from the date of expiry of 6 months from the date of death of her husband followed by release of all terminal benefits. Amount payable to respondent-plaintiff shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date it became payable up to the date of actual release. 19. Considering the fact that respondent-plaintiff lost her husband way back in the year 2002 and has been litigating with the appellant for her just cause, the appellant-State is saddled with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- which shall be paid to the respondent-plaintiff. The benefits due to the respondent- plaintiff along with interest and cost be paid to her within SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 RSA-2181-2012 (O&M) three months or else the appellants shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. 20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2026.08.01 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document