Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akwinder Kaur vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058476-DB
2024:PHHC:058476-DB
LPA-244-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-244-2024
Date of decision : 29.04.2024
Akwinder Kaur .......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
****
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral )
1. The consideration in the present appeal is to the order dated
16.12.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-21766-2021.
2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, wherein the
prayer was for the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Haryana
Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules,
2019 (in short '2019 Rules').
3. The case of the writ petitioner (appellant herein) was that on
account of death of her husband on 12.04.2019, after having served the
Haryana Police for almost seven years, she was granted the benefit of financial
assistance on 31.05.2019 for a period of 15 years upto 12.04.2034. It is the
case of the writ petitioner that her case was processed under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government
Employees Rules, 2006 (in short, 'the 2006 Rules') and the fresh Rules came
into force on 02.08.2019, wherein an option as such was given for
compassionate appointment or financial assistance. It is, thus, submitted that
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058476-DB
2024:PHHC:058476-DB
certain other persons, whose cases had been kept pending, were granted the
benefit of compassionate appointment, but the writ petitioner was granted the
benefit of financial assistance. Relevant portion of Note I of Rule 3 of the 2019
Rules reads as under :-
"Note 1 - The family of deceased Government employee
who died before the date of notification of these
rules but have not been sanctioned the
compassionate financial assistance by the
competent authority due to one reason or the
other, they may exercise an option within a period
of six months from the date of notification either
to avail the benefit under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the Departments of
Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 or
these rules. Option once exercised shall be final."
4. The learned Single Judge as such has referred to the fact that once
the claim of the writ petitioner had been processed under the 2006 Rules, and
the benefit of financial assistance having been granted to her, the claim as such
could not be granted as per Note-I under Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules, since her
case had already been considered. The 2019 Rules having come into force at a
subsequent point of time, the benefit of compassionate appointment as such
was not liable to be granted to her.
5. We are of the considered opinion that the whole purpose of
granting financial assistance is to ensure that the family gets over the urgency
of exigency of the situation on account of having lost its bread earner. The
State acted accordingly and granted the benefit of financial assistance to the
writ petitioner. Therefore, at this point of time, to submit that the State should
have waited for the new Rules to come in force, so that the writ petitioner
could have got the benefit of compassionate appointment, is an argument of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058476-DB
2024:PHHC:058476-DB
desperation. The Apex Court has already commented that the appointment on
compassionate basis is an exception to the Rule and not in normal
circumstances. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1994
(4) SCC 138. The family as such being granted the benefit of financial
assistance was the purpose of the scheme, which was in force at the time of
death of the employee. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Krishna
Kumari Vs. State of Haryana, 2012 (2) SCT 736 mandates the date of death
of the employee, which is the relevant date for consideration. The relevant
observations read as under :-
"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 recognized 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058476-DB
2024:PHHC:058476-DB
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."
6. At that time, 2006 Rules were in force. The said Full Bench
judgment has not been modified by the Apex Court. Similarly, three Judges
Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Amit Shrivas, 2020 (10)
SCC 496, as such has held that there cannot be any inherent right to
compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria,
especially to provide succour to a needy family. The policy as existing on the
date of demise would be the relevant criteria as such. In such circumstances,
keeping in view the law, which has already been settled, we do not find any
tangible reason to hold that the order of the learned Single Judge is not
sustainable.
6. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
( G.S. SANDHAWALIA )
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
( LAPITA BANERJI )
JUDGE
April 29, 2024
ndj
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
