Compassionate assistance claims finalized under 2006 Rules cannot be reopened to seek appointment under 2019 Rules.

In brief

The question

1. Whether Note 1 below Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules unlawfully creates a separate class among dependants whose claims arose under the 2006 Rules by granting an option only to those whose claims had not been sanctioned by 2 August 2019.

The court held

The Court held that petitioners who had already received compassionate financial assistance under the 2006 Rules had no right to reopen their settled claims, return the assistance, and seek compassionate appointment under the 2019 Rules.

It also directed

Note 1 below Rule 3 validly applied only to families whose claims remained pending and unsanctioned when the 2019 Rules were notified.

Finding no ground for interference, the Court dismissed all connected writ petitions and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.

01Facts

The petitioners were dependants of deceased Haryana Government employees whose claims were governed by the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006.

¶ 3

Under the 2006 Rules, only compassionate financial assistance was available, and the petitioners had already received and accepted the admissible financial assistance, thereby concluding their claims.

¶ 3

The 2006 Rules were amended and replaced by the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, notified on 2 August 2019.

¶ 4

The 2019 Rules introduced a choice between compassionate appointment and compassionate financial assistance.

¶ 4

Note 1 below Rule 3 permitted families whose claims under the 2006 Rules had not yet been sanctioned to exercise an option between the two schemes.

¶ 4 · ¶ 9

The petitioners challenged Note 1, contending that they too should be permitted to reopen their settled claims, return the financial assistance, and seek compassionate appointment.

¶ 4.1, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether Note 1 below Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules unlawfully creates a separate class among dependants whose claims arose under the 2006 Rules by granting an option only to those whose claims had not been sanctioned by 2 August 2019.

¶ 5, 9–10.1

ii.2. Whether petitioners who had already received compassionate financial assistance under the 2006 Rules could reopen their extinguished claims and opt for compassionate appointment under the 2019 Rules.

¶ 4.1, 8, 10

03Law Applied

The Court applied the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, under which only compassionate financial assistance was available, and the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, which introduced the alternatives of compassionate financial assistance or compassionate appointment.

¶ 3–4

Note 1 below Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules permits only families of employees who died before the notification of the 2019 Rules and whose compassionate financial assistance had not yet been sanctioned to exercise an option between the 2006 and 2019 schemes; the option, once exercised, is final.

¶ 9

The Court further applied the principle that once a claim has been finally determined and the admissible benefit has been paid and accepted, the claim is extinguished and cannot subsequently be reopened.

¶ 8

It also held that persons whose claims remained pending on the date of the 2019 Rules were not similarly situated to persons whose claims had already been settled.

¶ 10

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioners’ claims had been considered and finalized under the 2006 Rules, and that the benefits payable under those Rules had already been paid to them.

¶ 8

Consequently, their claims stood extinguished before the 2019 Rules came into force.

¶ 8

Note 1 was directed only at pending claims that continued to subsist on the date of the 2019 Rules; it did not reopen claims that had already attained finality.

¶ 9–10

Since the petitioners and the beneficiaries covered by Note 1 were in materially different positions, the Court rejected the argument that Note 1 created an impermissible “class within a class” or violated the principle of equality.

¶ 10.1

The Court also emphasized that permitting settled claims to be reopened would undermine finality and leave such claims perpetually open.

¶ 8