RSA-3591 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ramesh Kumar State of Haryana and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. CM-12862 107 days in re RSA-3591 [1] judgment and decree dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby Civil Appeal preferred by the appellant- 01.03.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, dismissing his suit, came to be dismissed and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were affirmed. [2] are that the appellant instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory 3591-2023(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH *** RSA Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Ajay Vijrania, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.P.S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 12862-C-2023 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 107 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. 3591-2023 The present Regular Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby Civil Appeal preferred by the -plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, dismissing his suit, came to be dismissed and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were affirmed. Brief facts necessary for adju are that the appellant instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3591-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 …Appellant …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Ajay Vijrania, Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of condoned. The present Regular Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby Civil Appeal preferred by the against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, dismissing his suit, came to be dismissed and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were affirmed. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of present appeal are that the appellant instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory 1 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of The present Regular Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby Civil Appeal preferred by the against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, dismissing his suit, came to be dismissed and the findings dication of present appeal are that the appellant instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.16 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 RSA-3591-2023(O&M) injunction pleading that his father late Shri Jai Karan was serving as a Multi Purpose Health Worker (MPHW) in the Health Department, Haryana. During service, he died in harness on 20.10.2000. Being a dependent family member of the deceased employee, the plaintiff applied for appointment under the Ex-gratia Policy of the Government of Haryana. It was pleaded that under the Government instructions dated 31.08.1995, a dependent of the deceased employee was entitled to appointment one step lower than the post held by the deceased employee. According to the plaintiff, the expression "one step lower" referred to one pay scale below the pay scale of the deceased employee and not to a lower category post. Since his father was working as a Class-III employee, he was entitled to appointment on a Class-III post, namely Clerk, as there was no lower post in the same cadre. The plaintiff pleaded that although his application was submitted soon after the death of his father and was forwarded by the department during the year 2000 itself, the respondents delayed the matter and ultimately offered him appointment as a Class-IV employee on 03.01.2002. According to the plaintiff, the delay was wholly attributable to the respondents and he could not be deprived of the benefit available under the policy prevailing on the date of submission of his application. It was further averred that another similarly situated dependent, namely Rajbir Singh, whose father was also serving in the Health Department, was appointed as Clerk and, therefore, denial of similar treatment to the plaintiff was arbitrary and discriminatory. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a declaration that he was entitled to appointment on the post of Clerk/Class-III under the Ex-gratia SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.16 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 RSA-3591-2023(O&M) Policy together with consequential benefits and also prayed for issuance of a mandatory injunction directing the respondents to appoint him on the said post. [3] The respondents contested the suit by filing a written statement. They raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and estoppel. On merits, it was pleaded that the policy governing compassionate appointments had undergone revision from time to time. It was specifically pleaded that Government instructions dated 07.02.2001 clarified that the expression "one step lower" meant appointment on one lower post. The respondents pleaded that when the plaintiff was appointed on 03.01.2002, the clarification dated 07.02.2001 was in force and was fully applicable to his case. Consequently, the plaintiff was rightly appointed against a Class-IV post. [4] On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as well as mandatory injunction as prayed for in the head note of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD 5. Relief.” [5] In support of his case, the plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.16 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 RSA-3591-2023(O&M) reiterating the averments contained in the plaint. He also relied upon the documents produced on record in support of his claim. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not graduate when his father expired. [6] The defendants examined Dr. Deep, Deputy Civil Surgeon, as DW-1, who deposed regarding the Government policy and the clarification dated 07.02.2001 (Ex.D1) governing appointments under the Ex-gratia Scheme. Documentary evidence in support of the departmental stand was also produced. [7] After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court decided Issue No.1 against the plaintiff and consequently dismissed the suit. Issues No.2 to 4 were not pressed by the defendants during arguments and were decided accordingly. [8] Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhiwani. [9] Before the learned First Appellate Court, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the expression "one step lower" occurring in the policy referred to one lower pay scale and not one lower post. Since the deceased employee was working as a Multi Purpose Health Worker in Group-C service, the appellant was entitled to appointment on a Class-III post, namely Clerk. It was further contended that the appellant had submitted his application in the year 2000 and, therefore, his claim ought to have been considered under the policy prevailing at the relevant time. The clarification dated 07.02.2001, according to the appellant, could not SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.16 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 RSA-3591-2023(O&M) be applied to his case merely because the department delayed issuance of the appointment order. [10] The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the Trial Court. It was submitted that compassionate appointment is governed by the policy in force on the date on which appointment is actually made and not by the policy existing on the date of submission of the application. It was further submitted that the clarification dated 07.02.2001 was operative when the appellant was appointed on 02.01.2002 and, therefore, the respondents had correctly appointed him against a Class-IV post. It was also argued that Rajbir Singh's appointment was made after the amendment of the Rules in the year 2004 and his case was not comparable to that of the appellant. Accordingly, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. [11] Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in applying the clarification dated 07.02.2001 to the case of the appellant despite the fact that his application under the Ex-gratia Policy had been submitted in the year 2000. It is argued that the clarification could not be given retrospective operation so as to defeat the appellant's claim under the earlier policy. It is further submitted that the deceased employee was serving on a Class-III post and there being no lower post available in the same category, the appellant ought to have been appointed as Clerk. Learned counsel has also reiterated that another similarly situated dependent, namely Rajbir SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.16 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 RSA-3591-2023(O&M) Singh, was appointed as Clerk and, therefore, the appellant has been subjected to discrimination. [12] Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below. It is submitted that the appointment of the appellant was made strictly in accordance with the Government instructions prevailing on the date of appointment and that no vested right accrued to the appellant merely because an application had been submitted earlier. It is further contended that the case of Rajbir Singh arose under the amended policy of 2004 and cannot form basis for claiming parity. The respondents thus pray for affirmation of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. [13] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. [14] The appellant does not dispute that he was appointed under the Ex-gratia Scheme on 02.01.2002 and joined service on 03.01.2002 as a Class-IV employee. His grievance is confined to the assertion that he ought to have been appointed as Clerk as instructions dated 31.08.1995 envisaged appointment on one pay scale below the deceased employee and not one lower post. The respondents, on the other hand, have consistently maintained that before the appellant came to be appointed, the Government had issued clarification dated 07.02.2001 explaining that the expression "one step lower" meant appointment on one lower post. The appellant was accordingly offered appointment against a Class-IV post in January, 2002. SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.16 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 RSA-3591-2023(O&M) [15] The learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court have examined the Government instructions produced on record. Both the Courts have concurrently held that on the date the appellant was offered appointment, the clarification dated 07.02.2001 was operative and the respondents were required to process the appellant's case in accordance therewith. [16] The judgment of the learned Trial Court reveals that it considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties before recording its conclusion. The learned First Appellate Court has independently re-appreciated the entire evidence, dealt with each contention raised by the appellant and assigned cogent reasons for affirming the decree passed by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds itself in agreement with the reasons recorded by the Courts below. [17] In considered opinion of this Court, compassionate appointment is not a mode of public recruitment. Such appointment is regulated entirely by the policy framed by the Government and the appointing authority is required to act within the parameters of the policy applicable to the case. Once the respondents have acted in accordance with the Government instructions governing the appellant's appointment, no enforceable right accrues in favour of the appellant to claim appointment against a higher post. Moreover, the claim made by the plaintiff was even hit by delay and latches besides he having acquiesced his appointment on Class IV post as the suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming Class III post by the plaintiff was filed in the year 2015 though he accepted SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.16 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 RSA-3591-2023(O&M) the offer of appointment by the respondents/ defendants in the year 2002, having joined the said post. [18] No ground has been made out to take a view different from that concurrently recorded by the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court. [19] Consequently, present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, as affirmed by the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, are upheld. [20] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.16 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document