Jitender Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

IN TH

215


Jitender Ku



State of Ha

CORAM: HON

Present:- Mr. S
for th

Mr. P

NIDHI GUPTA, J .
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-33978
Date of De
8-2025 (O&M)
ecision:- 03.11.2026
umar and another
… Petitioners
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
Sandeep Thakan, Advocate
he petitioners.
Parveen Mehta, Addl. A.G. Harya

ana.
Prese
ent Civil Writ Petition und
er Articles 226/227 of the
e
Constitution of In
ndia has been filed by the peti
tioner for issuance of a writ in
n
nature of manda
mus directing the respondents t
to consider one family member
r
of deceased emp
ployee for compassionate appoin
ntment who died in harness on
n
31.03.2006, in te
erms of the Compassionate As
sistance to the Dependents of
f
Deceased Govern
nment Employees Rules, 2003 (h
hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules
s
2003’) dated 28.0
02.2003 (Annexure P-11).
2. It is
inter alia submitted by ld. co
ounsel for the petitioners that
t
petitioner no.1 is
s the son and petitioner no.2
is the widow of the deceased
d
government emp
ployee who had expired on 31.
.03.2006. As per the prevailing
g
Haryana Compas
ssionate Assistance and Emplo
oyment to the Dependents of
f
Deceased Govern
nment Employees Rules, 2005 (h
hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules
s
2005’)(Annexure
P-12), petitioner no.2 had duly
y submitted her application for
r
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33978-2025

compassionate ap
5 (O&M) - 2 -
ppointment on 11.07.2006 (Ann
nexure P-3). It is contended that
t
as per the Policy (
(Annexure P-12), petitioner was
liable to be granted either Rs. 5
5
Lakhs towards c
ompassionate financial assistan
nce or granted compassionate
e
appointment. Ho
wever, till date, despite repeate
ed representations, legal notice,
,
etc., and visits to
the office of the respondent De
epartment, neither of the above
e
two benefits have
e been granted to the petitioner
r.
3. It is
submitted that no action has b
been taken by the respondents
s
despite the fact
that case of the petitioner ha
as been recommended by the
e
respondent No.
4/Executive Engineer, Public
Health Engineering Division,
,
Charkhi Dadri vid
e Communication dated 27.06.2
2023 (Annexure P-9).
4. It is
submitted that the petitioner h
has been running from pillar to
o
post since 2006.
The action of the respondents
in not considering the claim of
f
the petitioner un
nder Ex-gratia appointment, sin
ce a long period, when he and
d
his mother were
e living in a very great hardsh
hip, is totally illegal, arbitrary,
,
unconstitutional a
and thus the same is liable to be
e set aside.
5. Acco
ordingly prays that the present
writ petition be allowed and a

writ in nature of m
mandamus be issued directing t
he respondents to consider one
e
family member o
of deceased employee for com
mpassionate appointment who
o
died in harness
on 31.03.2006, in terms of Co
ompassionate Assistance to the
e
Dependents of De
eceased Government Employee
es Rules, 2003 dated 28.02.2003
3
(P-11).
6. Per c
contra , ld. State counsel has ve
hemently opposed submissions
s
of the petitioner,
, contending that after death of
f the government employee on
n
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33978-2025

31.03.2006, resp
5 (O&M) - 3 -
pondents had granted all bene
efits to which petitioners were
e
entitled as per th
e Policy dated 28.02.2003. It is s
submitted that it is incorrect for
r
the petitioners to
o state that compassionate fin
ancial assistance has not been
n
received by them
.
7. It is
contended that in Para 6 of
f the written statement dated
d
24.04.2026 filed
on behalf of respondents No. 1
1 to 4, respondents have made
e
specific assertion
n to the effect that “after the y
year of 2006, nobody has come
e
forward even to
o see the status of their file
e and instead of getting the
e
compassionate ap
ppointment, the petitioners got
all the other benefits for which
h
they were entitled
d”; which has not been denied b
by the petitioners.
8. It is f
further submitted that petitione
ers have never come forward to
o
pursue their case
e. Present writ petition has been
n filed almost two decades after
r
the demise of th
he government employee. As su
uch, claim of the petitioners is
s
barred by delay a
and laches. Accordingly, prays for
r dismissal.
9. No o
other argument is made on be
ehalf of the ld. counsel for the
e
parties. I have h
eard the ld. counsel and perus
sed the case file and record in
n
detail. I find no m
merit in the submissions advance
ed on behalf of the petitioners.
10. The r
record reveals that the deceased
d government employee/ father
r
of petitioner No.
1 and husband of petitioner N
No. 2 was working as Beldar on
n
regular basis and
d had died in harness on 31.
03.2006 while in service. It is
s
pertinent to note
e that it is the admitted case of
f the petitioners that petitioner
r
No. 2 has been gr
ranted family pension as admitt
ted in para 3 of the present writ
t
petition which rea
ads as under: –
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33978-2025

5 (O&M) - 4 -
“3. That after death of husb
and of petitioner No.2 she has
s
been granted family pensi
ion vide PPO No.36944-F/HR
R
ANNEXURE P-2.”
11. Thus
s, the contention of the petition
ners that no financial assistance
e
has been received
d by them, is contrary to their ow
wn stated case.
12. It is
the case of the petitioners
that after the death of the
e
government emp
ployee on 31.03.2006, petitio
oner No. 2 had submitted an
n
application dated
d 11.07.2006 (Annexure P-3)
seeking ex-gratia employment
t
under the ‘Ex-gra
atia Scheme’. However, petitione
er had failed to pursue the said
d
application. The r
record reveals that it is only 11 y
years thereafter that petitioners
s
claim to have se
erved legal notice dated 14.03.
2017 (Annexure P-4) upon the
e
respondents. Wh
hereafter, present writ petition
has been filed only in the year
r
2025 i.e. 19 year
s after the death of the govern
nment employee. Thus, claim of
f
petitioners is bar
rred by delay and laches. T his C
Court in Sudhir Bala v. State of
f
Punjab, (Punjab
And Haryana): Law Finder D
Doc Id # 2678248 , decided on
n
11.12.2024; has h
held that “Delay and laches in fil
ling a writ petition under Article
e
226 of the Const
titution of India can disentitle a
a petitioner to relief, especially
y
when there is an i
inordinate and unexplained dela
ay in asserting one's rights.”
13. It is
further to be noted that peti
itioners are seeking benefit of
f
compassionate a
ppointment under the Haryana
a Compassionate Assistance to
o
the Dependents
of Deceased Government Emp
loyees Rules, 2003, notified on
n
28.02.2003 (P-11
). As per Rule 4 of the said Rules
s, it is provided as follows: -
“4. (1
1) A dependent of the deceased/
d/missing Government employee
e
shall
l give in writing his/her prefer
rence of option, within 3 years
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33978-2025

5 (O&M) - 5 -
from
m the date of death of the Gover
rnment employee, for one of the
e
follo
wing:-
(a) ex-gratia appointm
ent on compassionate grounds
s
to a member of the
family who was "completely
y
dependent" on the d
deceased employee and is in
n
extreme financial dist
tress due to the loss of the
e
deceased, namely, the G
Government employee who dies
s
in "service"
Or
(b) ex-gratia compassio
onate financial assistance to the
e
family of the decease
ed, over and above all other
r
benefits like ex-gratia g
rant due to his/her family, to be
e
paid @ Rs. 2.5 lacs
in case of the family of the
e
deceased not opting for
r ex-gratia employment.
(2) Exercise of option shall be
e permitted only once and shall
l
not be changed, once exercise
ed.”
14. How
wever, at the time of death of
the government employee on
n
31.3.2006, the H
Haryana Compassionate Assista
ance Dependents of Deceased
d
Government Emp
ployees Rules, 2005, which had
d been notified on 18.11.2005
5
(Annexure P-12)
), were in vogue. As per
the 2005 Rules, amount of
f
compassionate fi
inancial assistance had been in
ncreased from ₹2.5 lakhs to ₹5
5
lakhs. Further, o
option for compassionate ap
pointment OR compassionate
e
financial assistan
ce was to be exercised within 6
6 months from date of death of
f
the government e
employee.
15. The
said 2005 Rules also came to
be repealed; and the Haryana
a
Compassionate
Assistance to the Dependen
nts of Deceased Government
t
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33978-2025

Employees Rule
5 (O&M) - 6 -
es, 2006, notified on 01.08
.2006 (Annexure R-1), were
e
promulgated. As
per Rule 8 of the 2006 Rules, it w
was provided that:
“8. The Haryana Compa
assionate Assistance to the
e
Depe
endents of Deceased Governmen
nt Employees Rules, 2005, which
h
are i
in force immediately before the
e commencement of these rules
s
are h
hereby repealed.
Provided that families will hav
ve the option to opt for the lump
p
sum
ex-gratia grant provided in the
Rules 2003 or 2005, as the case
e
may
be, in lieu of the monthly finan
ncial assistance provided under
r
these
e rules:
Provided further that in all p
pending cases where the family
y
exerc
cises the option to receive the f
financial assistance under these
e
rules
s, the calculation of the period a
nd payment shall be made from
m
the d
date of notification of these rules
s.”

16. As p
er the 2006 Rules, the eligibility
y to receive financial assistance
e
under these Rule
es shall be as per the provisions
s in the pension/family pension
n
scheme, 1964. A
s per the 2006 Rules it was sp
ecifically provided that families
s
will have the opt
tion to opt for the lump sum
ex-gratia grant provided in the
e
Rules 2003 or 2
2005, as the case may be, in
lieu of the monthly financial
l
assistance provid
ed under these Rules.
17. It is
to be noted that the responde
nts have categorically stated in
n
their written stat
tement that at that time the pe
etitioners had opted for the ex-
-
gratia compassio
onate financial assistance and
petitioner no.2 is getting the
e
family pension
till date. No replication has
been filed by the petitioner
r
controverting the
e aforesaid assertions made in th
heir written statement. Thus, for
r
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33978-2025

the petitioners to
5 (O&M) - 7 -
o now file the present writ petit
tion 19 years after the death of
f
the government
employee, praying for compass
sionate appointment under the
e
repealed 2003 Ru
ules is not sustainable in the eye
es of law. The said prayer of the
e
petitioners can a
also not be granted on accoun
nt of the fact that the alleged
d
application dated
d 11.7.2006 was made by the pet
titioners under the 2005 Rules.
18. Last,
but not the least, compassiona
ate appointment is not a vested
d
right as held b
y the Hon’ble Supreme Court
t in State of West Bengal v.
.
Debabrata Tiwar
ri (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2149
9428 , that: –
“ Delayed ap
pproach to the High Court - Such
a delay would disentitle the Re-
spondents
s-Writ Petitioners to the discretio
onary relief under Article 226.
A. Comp
passionate appointment - Object
t and Scope - On consideration
of various de
ecisions of Supreme Court, the fo
ollowing principles regarding
Compassiona
ate Appointment emerge:
i. T
That a provision for compassion
nate appointment makes a de-
-
parture
from the general provisions p
providing for appointment to a
a
post by
following a particular procedur
re of recruitment - Since such a
a
provisio
on enables appointment being m
made without following the said
d
procedu
ure, it is in the nature of an exce
eption to the general provisions
s
and mu
st be resorted to only in order t
to achieve the stated objectives,

i.e., to e
enable the family of the decease
ed to get over the sudden finan-
-
cial crisi
is.
ii. A
Appointment on compassionate
e grounds is not a source of re-
-
cruitme
nt - The reason for making suc
ch a benevolent scheme by the
e
State or
r the public sector undertaking i
is to see that the dependants of
f
the dec
eased are not deprived of the m
means of livelihood. It only en-
-
ables th
he family of the deceased to get o
over the sudden financial crisis.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33978-2025

5 (O&M) - 8 -
iii.
Compassionate appointment is
not a vested right which can be
e
exercise
ed at any time in future - Compas
ssionate employment cannot be
e
claimed
d or offered after a lapse of time
and after the crisis is over.
iv.
That compassionate appointme
ent should be provided immedi-
-
ately to
o redeem the family in distress
- It is improper to keep such a
a
case pen
nding for years.
v. I
In determining as to whether th
he family is in financial crisis, all
l
relevant
t aspects must be borne in min
nd including the income of the
e
family, i
its liabilities, the terminal benefi
its if any, received by the family,

the age,
, dependency and marital statu
us of its members, together with
h
the inco
ome from any other source.”
19. The a
above view has been followed
by this Court in Pinki Devi v.
State of Haryan
na, (P & H): Law Finder Doc
Id # 2859118 ; wherein it is
held that:
“ Co
ompassionate appointment is n
ot a vested right and is subject
t
to s
strict scrutiny of financial destitu
ution and fulfillmentof eligibility
y
crit
teria as per applicable policy a
t the time of death of the em-
-
plo
oyee.”
20. Lear
ned counsel for the petitioner
is unable to controvert or dis-
-
pute the above s
aid factual and legal position. A
ccordingly, the present writ pe-
-
tition stands dism
missed .
21. Pend
ding application(s), if any, also st
ands disposed of.


03.11.2026
Neelam
( N

NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE


Wheth

Wheth
her speaking /reasoned Yes / N
her Reportable Yes / N
No
No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document