Anuj vs State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(112+227)
1. CWP-23249-2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2026
Anuj --Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. --Respondents
2. CWP-3978-2021(O&M)
Pardeep & Anr. --Petitioners
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. --Respondents
3. CWP-5919-2021(O&M)
Mandeep & Ors. --Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. --Respondents
4. CWP-11465-2024(O&M)
Karan Singh & Ors. --Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV.
Present:- Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP Nos.3978 and 5919 of 2021.
Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP Nos.23249-2026 and CWP-11465-2024.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI .J (Oral)
1. In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the Note 1
below Rule 3 of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial
Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred to as the
LUCKY
2026.09.08 10:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CWP-23249-2026(O&M) & connected petitions -2-
'2019 Rules').
2. Certain facts need to be mentioned for the correct appreciation
of the issue in hand.
3. The State of Haryana had formulated Haryana Compassionate
Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules,
2006 (hereinafter to be referred as 2006 Rules). Upon framing of such 2006
Rules, only the financial assistance could be given to the legal heirs of the
deceased Govt. employee and there was no availability of compassionate
appointment. Keeping in view the date of death of the deceased employee
in the present bunch of petitions, the same was covered under 2006 Rules
for the grant of benefits and it is a conceded position that whatever the relief
was liable to be given qua compassionate financial assistance, the same had
already been extended to the next of the kin of the deceased employee and
was accepted.
4. The said 2006 Rules, came to be amended on 02.08.2019 and
the State decided that the next of the kin of the deceased Govt. employee,
from the date of notification, will be entitled to choose between the
compassionate appointment and compassionate financial assistance and
further under Note 1, gave the liberty that the families of the deceased Govt.
employee who could not get the financial assistance settled under 2006
Rules and such claim is pending when 2019 Rules were made applicable,
can also opt whether they want to continue with the financial assistance or
want compassionate appointment so that their cases could be taken to
logical end.
4.1 The said 2019 Rules are under challenge at the hands of the
petitioners by raising a plea that though, on the date when the benefit of
LUCKY
2026.09.08 10:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CWP-23249-2026(O&M) & connected petitions -3-
financial assistance was given under 2006 Rules, there was no
compassionate appointment available but under 2019 Rules, the
compassionate appointment could be granted to the kin of the deceased
employee. Hence, even their cases should be reopened so as to seek fresh
option whether they want financial assistance or compassionate
appointment, which benefit has only been given to the kin of the deceased
who was covered under 2006 Rules but, could not be settled till the
promulgation of 2019 Rules, as notified on 02.08.2019.
5. Learned counsels for the petitioners argued that a separate class
within a class has been created, which is incorrect as, the claimants whose
cases were covered under 2006 Rules, should not have been brought under
2019 Rules and in case any such claimant has been brought under 2019
Rules, even such benefit should be given to the others who might have
taken the compassionate financial assistance so as to return the same in
order to claim the compassionate appointment.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits
that the 2006 Rules and 2019 Rules are framed so as to grant the
compassionate benefits. It is argued that there is no right to claim such
benefit.
6.1. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that after the
promulgation of 2019 Rules, whatever the benefit become admissible to the
kin of the deceased employees, who died after 02.08.2019, are to be made
eligible which includes compassionate appointment or the compassionate
financial assistance.
6.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents-State that prior to the said date, there was no compassionate
LUCKY
2026.09.08 10:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CWP-23249-2026(O&M) & connected petitions -4-
appointment under 2006 Rules, hence, only the compassionate financial
assistance could be paid which have been paid to the petitioners which
extinguished their rights to claim any other benefits.
6.3. Learned counsel for the respondents-State further submits that
only the claimants under 2006 Rules whose claims were still to be finalized,
have only been given option. Hence, claiming that a class within a class has
been created, is incorrect as only the claimants whose claim under 2006
Rules was still to be decided/released, option has been given to them under
2019 Rules which is perfectly valid and legal and the claim which stands
extinguished, cannot be reopened on the asking of such claimants who have
already got the compassionate financial assistance paid to them.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
have gone through the records with their able assistance.
8. It may be noticed that the claim of the petitioners were already
considered and finalized under 2006 Rules, keeping in view the death of the
employee concerned. Whatever the benefits were admissible under 2006
Rules, have already been extended to them which is a conceded fact. Once
the benefit under the 2006 Rules has already been given to the petitioners,
upon payment of such benefit their claim under 2006 Rules becomes
extinguished and any claim which has become extinguished, cannot be
reopened. The finality to such claim has to be adhered to otherwise, the
claim will never die.
9. Further, the argument that a class within the class has been
created under Note 1 of Rule 3 of 2019 Rules. The said note is 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
LUCKY
2026.09.08 10:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CWP-23249-2026(O&M) & connected petitions -5-
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.”
10. A bare perusal of the above would show that the said Note is
only qua the claimants whose claim subsisted even under 2006 Rules upto
the date of promulgation of the 2019 Rules. The petitioners, whose rights
stood extinguished prior to the promulgation of the 2019 Rules cannot claim
to be similarly situated as the claimants whose rights subsisted upto the date
of 2019 Rules.
10.1. Hence, claiming parity qua the compassionate appointment as
other dependents covered by Note-1 below Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules by the
petitioners is incorrect so as to further claim of discrimination that there is a
class within the class, which has been created.
11. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground for
interference is made out and the petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
12. Pending Misc. applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on each connected file.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
02.09.2026 (MINDERJEET YADAV)
lucky JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
LUCKY
2026.09.08 10:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh