IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CWP-19799-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 15.07 .2026 Parveen Kumar … PeƟƟoner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Anmol Verma, Advocate with Mr. Aalok Verma, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A G, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner seeking for issuance a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to decide, within a Ɵme- bound period, the peƟƟoner’s claim/representaƟon dated 10.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), for appointment to a Class-IV post on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, Sh. Tej Pal, who died in harness on 08.04.2012. 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner that father of the peƟƟoner, namely, Sh. Tej Pal had died on duty in harness as Mali on 08.04.2012 as evident from his death cerƟficate (Annexure P-2). Prior to his death, father of the peƟƟoner had rendered 5 years’ regular service as Mali. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19799-2026 (O&M) - 2 - 3. Ld. counsel submits that immediately aŌer the death of Sh. Tej Pal in the year 2012, the peƟƟoner's family submiƩed a wriƩen representaƟon/claim in the year 2013 itself before respondent no.3 for seeking compassionate appointment/assistance as per the then prevailing policy and at that Ɵme assistance pay was duly given to the peƟƟoner's mother i.e. Smt. Leela Devi who has also suddenly expired on 12.10.2013 and thereaŌer no financial assistance has been granted to the family of deceased Sh. Tej Pal and no decision has ever been communicated regarding compassionate appointment and the claim is sƟll kept pending without any speaking order. 4. Ld. counsel submits that the peƟƟoner is living below poverty line as evident from the copy of BPL card (Annexure P-5). As such, peƟƟoner is enƟtled to compassionate appointment. PeƟƟoner had got served legal noƟce dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-8) upon the respondents through email as well as through post for compassionate appointment. However, vide reply dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-11), claim of the peƟƟoner has been rejected. 5. The peƟƟoner had then submiƩed representaƟon dated 10.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) to the District HorƟculture Officer, Department of HorƟculture, Ambala. However, vide reply leƩer dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-13), the District HorƟculture Officer informed the peƟƟoner that the authority to appoint employee did not lie with the District HorƟculture Officer. Pursuant thereto peƟƟoner had submiƩed representaƟon dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P- 14) to the Chief Minister, Haryana. 6. It is submiƩed that subsequently, the State of Haryana has noƟfied the 2019 Rules vide NoƟficaƟon No. G.S.R. 32/Const./Art.309/2019 dated NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19799-2026 (O&M) - 3 - 02.08.2019, effecƟve from 1.08.2019, providing for compassionate financial assistance or compassionate appointment to a dependent family member of a Government employee who dies or disappears while in service. He further submits that the respondents are under a statutory and consƟtuƟonal obligaƟon to consider the peƟƟoner's case under the applicable policy governing compassionate appointment/assistance, now embodied in the 2019 Rules, and their inacƟon in not deciding the peƟƟoner's claim is arbitrary, unreasonable and violaƟve of ArƟcles 14 and 21 of the ConsƟtuƟon. It is submiƩed that the peƟƟoner's father was a Government employee and fulfilled all the eligibility condiƟons for compassionate assistance/appointment in terms of Rule 4 of the 2019 Rules (five years regular service, age below 52 at the Ɵme of death), and the peƟƟoner falls within the definiƟon of “eligible family member” under Rule 5(f)-(g) being a dependent son of deceased Tej Pal and that the peƟƟoner's original representaƟon of 2013 was made promptly aŌer the death which sƟll remains undecided as on today; and the fresh representaƟon dated 10.05.2025 on the asking of respondents does not create any delay for claim but only reiterates a subsisƟng claim, giving rise to a conƟnuous cause of acƟon so long as the family remains in financial distress and no compassionate benefit is granted. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ peƟƟon be allowed and the peƟƟoner be granted compassionate appointment. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the State has opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoner by contending that claim of the peƟƟoner is highly belated as father of the peƟƟoner had expired on 08.04.2012 whereas peƟƟoner had firstly approached the respondents only vide legal noƟce dated NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19799-2026 (O&M) - 4 - 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-8). It is submiƩed that as per the established legal posiƟon such a belated claim cannot be entertained. Moreover, right to compassionate appointment is not a vested right. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present peƟƟon. 8. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoner. 9. The father of the peƟƟoner had expired on 08.04.2012, as evident from the death cerƟficate (Annexure P-2). Although it is the contenƟon of the peƟƟoner that he had first approached the respondents for compassionate appointment in the year 2013, however, there is nothing on record to substanƟate the said claim of the peƟƟoner. PeƟƟoner has not menƟoned the specific Date of representaƟon allegedly submiƩed in 2013. PeƟƟoner has also not stated as to whom was the said representaƟon submiƩed. 10. As per the record, the peƟƟoner had sought compassionate appointment from the respondents for the first Ɵme, vide legal noƟce dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-8). The same came to be rejected by the respondents vide a speaking order dated 7.03.2025 (Annexure P-11), by ciƟng cogent reasons to the effect that: aŌer the death of Sh. Tej pal on 08.04.2012, his wife Smt. Leela Devi was geƫng monthly payment assistance pay against the service of her husband; Subsequently, Smt. Leela Devi had also expired on 12.10.2013; at which Ɵme the peƟƟoner was already aƩained the age of majority having already completed age of 25 years and was not dependent upon his deceased father Tej pal. It was further informed vide leƩer dated 7.03.2025 (Annexure P- NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19799-2026 (O&M) - 5 - 11) that at the Ɵme of death of Sh. Tej pal "there was no scheme or facility for appointment of dependent of deceased employee on compassionate ground." Thus, the contenƟon of the peƟƟoner that he had sought compassionate appointment in the year 2013, as per the exisƟng policy, is falsified. Relevant extract of the reply dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) to the legal noƟce (Annexure P-8) is as follows:- “The undersigned would like to draw your aƩenƟon to the real facts of the maƩer that Sh, Tej Pal, the father of your client was serving as Mali with the Department of HorƟculture, Haryana, who died on 08.04.2012. AŌer the death of Sh. Tej Pal, his wife Smt. Leela Devi was geƫng monthly payment assistance pay against the services of her husband Sh. Tej Pal. Later on, Smt. Leela Devi was also expired on 12.10.2013 and at that Ɵme your client has already aƩained the age of majority. AŌer the death of Sh. Tej Pal, Mali, there was no scheme or facility for appointment of dependent of deceased employee on compassionate ground. Moreover, at the Ɵme of death of Sh. Tej Pal Mali your client has already completed the age of 25 years and your client was not dependent upon the deceased Tej Pal, Mali. Thus, at the relevant Ɵme, your client has never applied for claiming the service on the compassionate ground against the services of Late Sh. Tej Pal Mali. Now aŌer lapse of approximately 12 years from the date of death of his father, your client is serving the present legal noƟce with some ulterior moƟves. It is appropriate to menƟon here that as per Haryana Govt. NoƟficaƟon dated 02.08.2019 the eldest unmarried and dependent son(s) or daughter (s) are eligible for claiming compassionate appointment upto the age of twenty-five years Accordingly, the request of your client through present legal noƟce is considerable. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19799-2026 (O&M) - 6 - The undersigned specifically deny all allegaƟons menƟoned in your legal noƟce dated 26.12.2024, which are false to the knowledge of your client and just framed for taking undue benefits from the department.” 11. The peƟƟoner is unable to dispute or controvert the above reasons given by the respondent for rejecƟng his claim for compassionate appointment. Moreover, it is no longer res integra that claim for compassionate appointment is not a vested right; and that a belated claim is liable to be rejected. 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 Ɵme of death of deceased employee only is required to be considered and not subsequent policy. ConsƟtuƟon of India, 1950 ArƟcle 133 Compassionate appointment - For appointment on compassionate ground, policy prevalent at Ɵme 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 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 consideraƟon and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19799-2026 (O&M) - 7 - employee is only to be considered. In that view of the maƩer, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 12. 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 scruƟny of financial desƟtuƟon and fulfillment of eligibility criteria as per applicable policy at the Ɵme of death of the employee. A. ConsƟtuƟon of India, 1950 ArƟcles 14, 16, 21, 300, 300A Service Rules for District Red Cross SocieƟes in Haryana Rule 15(v) Compassionate appointment -Claim for compassionate appointment must be assessed under the policy prevalent at the Ɵme 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 scruƟny and applicable policy, rules, or instrucƟons, and cannot be granted arbitrarily.” The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under: - “9. Be that as it may, as far as the peƟƟoner 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 Ɵme 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 peƟƟoner highlighƟng how the policy dated 02.08.2019 would apply to the case of the peƟƟoner, this relief cannot be provided to her. 10. However, the peƟƟoner(s) deserve for their claims of compassionate appointment to be considered in terms of seƩled law and applicable policy. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19799-2026 (O&M) - 8 - Considering the objecƟve of ex-graƟa policies, the peƟƟoner(s) may be given an opportunity to make their case before the competent authority. However, since this concession essenƟally 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 Online SC 3292, wherein, speaking through JusƟce A.G. Masih, the following as held: "11. The very idea of equality enshrined in ArƟcle 14 is a concept clothed in posiƟvity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sancƟty of law. No direcƟon can, therefore, be issued mandaƟng the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity commiƩed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instrucƟons applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not enƟtle 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 direcƟons issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the jusƟce but would negate its ethos resulƟng in the law being a causality culminaƟng 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 sancƟon. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negaƟve to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or jusƟficaƟon. 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 condiƟon of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scruƟny or undertaking a process of selecƟon. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scruƟny of the various parameters as laid down with an intenƟon to help a family out of a sudden NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19799-2026 (O&M) - 9 - pecuniary financial desƟtuƟon to help it get out of the emerging urgent situaƟon 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 fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instrucƟons, or rules for such a compassionate appointment. 13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy, instrucƟon, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted."(emphasis added)” 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal posiƟon, the present writ peƟƟon stands dismissed. 14. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 15.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh