CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 1 of 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 Date of decision: 09.07.2026 1. CWP-1779-2022 (O&M) Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) AND 2. CWP-1790-2022 (O&M) Pardeep Kumar ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajnish K. Gupta and Mr. Sachin, Advocates for the petitioner(s). Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CWP-1779-2022: Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ/direction/order in the nature of certiorari/mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in light of Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (in short ‘Rules of 2019’). DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 2 of 10 CWP-1790-2022: Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus thereby directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in view of the policy for compassionate appointment applicable to the dependents of deceased officials of Armed Forces posted in Haryana Police in the light of the Rules of 2019 known as Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (in short 'Rules of 2019) and additionally the revised financial benefits may also be given to the petitioner as per policy, in the interest of justice. 2. Both the above said Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues involved in both the cases are identical/similar. For the sake of convenience, facts are being drawn from CWP-1779-2022 titled as Rajinder Singh vs. State of Haryana and others. 3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner, namely, late Sh. Jarnail Singh, was posted in Haryana Police as EASI No. 774. Father of the petitioner expired on 17.10.2015. It is contended that upon the death of his father, petitioner was entitled for compassionate appointment under the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 2019’). However, despite fulfilling all the requirements i.e. being 21 years of age and despite having requisite DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 3 of 10 educational qualification as evident from his School Certificates and other Examination Certificates (Annexure P-2 colly), petitioner was not considered or offered compassionate appointment even on a post one step below the rank of his late father. Accordingly, petitioner submitted a Representation dated 18.04.2016 (Annexure P-4). Petitioner had also served legal notice dated 29.07.2016; thereby seeking compassionate appointment. However, case of the petitioner was rejected vide reply dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-5). 4. Learned counsel submits that in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have ignored Rules of 2019 (Annexure P-6), published vide Notification dated 02.08.2019, as per which, compassionate appointment is to be granted to the families of the Government employees who died or disappeared while in service to relieve the families of Government employees from financial distress and other hardship of life. It is reiterated that the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment under the said Rules of 2019. Rejection of the petitioner’s claim is not only illegal but is also unjust and inequitable. It is according prayed to “issue a writ especially in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus thereby directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in view of the policy for compassionate appointment applicable the dependents of deceased officials of Armed Forces posted in Haryana Police in the light of the Rules of 2019 known as Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (in short 'Rules of 2019') and additionally the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 4 of 10 revised financial benefits may also be given given to the petitioner as per policy, in the interest of justice.” 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by stating that father of the petitioner had expired on 17.10.2015 at which time the ‘Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules, 2006’ (in short ‘Rules of 2006’) were in existence. It is submitted that at that time Rules of 2019 were not applicable. Accordingly, in conformity with the Rules of 2006, necessary financial assistance has already been released in favour of mother of the petitioner i.e. wife of the deceased Jarnail Singh. Therefore, claim of the petitioner is misconceived, and the present Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State. 7. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of death of father of the petitioner on 17.10.2015, the 2006 Rules were in operation; in terms of which financial assistance has already been released to the mother of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that at the time the Rules of 2019 were not in force and there was no provision or Policy existing for ex gratia compassionate appointment. Clearly, therefore, claim of the petitioner is ill founded. Respondents in paras 2 and 3 of their written statement dated 18.05.2022 have stated as follows: - DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 5 of 10 “2. That true and material facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner namely Jarnail Singh was enrolled in Police Department on 07.12.1991 as Constable having date of birth 10.02.1965. Thereafter, he was promoted as EHC on 29.12.2007 and further EASI on 05.03.2014. On 17.10.2015, the father of the petitioner passed away due to illness. At that time, there was no policy with regard to Ex-gratia employment, only Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules, 2006 was in existence. So, the financial benefits due to the death of the father of the petitioner were released in favour of Smt. Kailash Kaur wife of deceased Jarnail Singh (mother of the petitioner). In addition, in pursuance of Rule 5(1) of Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules, 2006, the benefit of Monthly Financial Assistance has been accorded in favour of Smt. Kailash Kaur wife of deceased Jarnail Singh vide office order No. 30501-05/W-5 dated 03.12.2015 of the respondent No. 2. Copy of the same is enclosed herewith as Annexure R-1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 3. That the claim of the petitioner regarding Ex-gratia appointment had been considered by the authority but he was not found to be eligible for the same as at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, there was no policy regarding Ex-gratia employment, however, the benefit of Monthly Financial Assistance was accorded to the family of the deceased as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules, 2006 which was applicable and existence. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts, the petitioner is not at all entitled for Ex-gratia appointment.” DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 6 of 10 8. No replication has been filed by the petitioner refuting the above said factual and legal position. It is the admitted case that father of the petitioner had expired on 17.10.2015; whereas Rules of 2019 for compassionate appointment were notified only on 02.08.2019. There is no provision that the said Rules were applicable retrospectively. At the time of death of petitioner's father, Rules of 2006 were in force. It is not disputed that in compliance thereof, widow of the deceased Government employee is receiving monthly financial assistance. Claim of the petitioner is therefore, misconceived. 9. Even otherwise, it is no longer res integra that claim for compassionate appointment is not a vested right. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 1913256; wherein it is held as under: - “Compassionate appointment - Policy prevalent at time of death of deceased employee only is required to be considered and not subsequent policy. Constitution of India, 1950 Article 133 Compassionate appointment - For appointment on compassionate ground, policy prevalent at time of death of deceased employee only is required to be considered and not subsequent policy - Hence, order of compassionate appointment set aside.” The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- “4.1 In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. v. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 7 of 10 compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 10. The above said judgment has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pinki Devi v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana): Law Finder Doc Id # 2859118; wherein it is held as under:- “Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is subject to strict scrutiny of financial destitution and fulfillment of eligibility criteria as per applicable policy at the time of death of the employee. A. Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 16, 21, 300, 300A Service Rules for District Red Cross Societies in Haryana Rule 15(v) Compassionate appointment - Claim for compassionate appointment must be assessed under the policy prevalent at the time of death of the employee - Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession provided to help families in financial distress due to the death of the sole breadwinner - Held, it is subject to strict scrutiny and applicable policy, rules, or instructions, and cannot be granted arbitrarily. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 8 of 10 B. Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 16, 21, 300 300A Service Rules for District Red Cross Societies in Haryana Rule 15(v) Ex-gratia relief - Denial of compassionate appointment does not affect entitlement to ex-gratia relief - Kin of deceased employees may claim ex-gratia benefits as per applicable rules even if the post of the deceased does not exist anymore - Competent authority directed to consider representations for ex-gratia relief within prescribed timelines.” The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:- “9. Be that as it may, as far as the petitioner in CWP-6281-2022 is concerned, benefit of policy dated 02.08.2019 is being claimed while the deceased employee passed away in the year 2016. Tritely, the case of the claimants for compassionate appointment ought to be assessed in terms of the policy prevalent at the time of death of the employee, in view of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana 2012 (2) SCT 736. Therefore, in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner highlighting how the policy dated 02.08.2019 would apply to the case of the petitioner, this relief cannot be provided to her. 10. However, the petitioner(s) deserve for their claims of compassionate appointment to be considered in terms of settled law and applicable policy. Considering the objective of ex-gratia policies, the petitioner(s) may be given an opportunity to make their case before the competent authority. However, since this concession essentially allows for a side- door entry into government service, its provisions must be interpreted strictly. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tinku v. State of Haryana 2024 SCC DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 9 of 10 Online SC 3292, wherein, speaking through Justice A.G. Masih, the following as held: "11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification. 12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Nos. 1779 of 2022 (O&M) and 1790 of 2022 (O&M) 10 of 10 fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment. 13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted." (emphasis added)” 11. Keeping in view the above noted undisputed, factual and legal position, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. 12. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 09.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document