Ex-gratia compassionate assistance is governed by the policy in force on the employee’s date of death.

Kesar Dass, the appellant’s husband, was employed as a Conductor with Haryana Roadways. His services were terminated on 20.02.1995, and he died on 01.08.1998 while litigation challenging the termination was pending. The civil suit challenging the termination was decreed on 23.01.2003, and the State’s appeal was dismissed on 19.09.2003. The Department subsequently treated the period between termination and death as service and directed release of the deceased employee’s service benefits to the appellant.

The appellant was later sanctioned ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs.2,50,000/- under the Government instructions dated 31.03.2003, which was disbursed in November/December 2006.

The appellant filed a suit claiming Rs.5,00,000/- or full salary for twelve years under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance and Employment to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005, along with interest at 24% per annum on the delayed payment of Rs.2,50,000/-.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court upheld the rejection of the enhanced ex-gratia claim but awarded interest at 9% per annum on Rs.2,50,000/- from 19.11.2003 to 01.12.2006.

Whether the appellant was entitled to ex-gratia assistance of Rs.5,00,000/- or full salary for twelve years under the policy/Rules dated 18.11.2005, rather than Rs.2,50,000/- under the earlier policy?

Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for the period during which its payment was delayed, and at what rate and from which date?

Whether the respondents were required to consider the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment under the policy applicable on the date of her husband’s death, i.e. the instructions dated 08.05.1995?

The Court applied the principle that entitlement to compassionate appointment or ex-gratia assistance is governed by the policy or statutory rules in force on the date of the employee’s death.

Since Kesar Dass died on 01.08.1998, the applicable framework was the Government policy dated 08.05.1995, and the subsequent policies dated 28.02.2003 and 18.11.2005 could not retrospectively govern the appellant’s substantive entitlement.

The Court further applied the equitable principle that prolonged deprivation or delayed release of a monetary benefit may justify award or modification of interest to compensate the claimant, even where the precise enhanced benefit claimed is not legally payable.

The Court did not identify or rely upon any separate statutory provision or judicial precedent in the operative reasoning.

The Court held that the appellant’s claim had to be examined with reference to the policy prevailing on the date of her husband’s death. Accordingly, the 2005 policy, which provided for Rs.5,00,000/- or full salary for twelve years, could not be invoked retrospectively.

Although the respondents should originally have considered the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment under the 08.05.1995 policy, approximately 31 years had elapsed and the appellant had already received ex-gratia compensation; therefore, the Court declined to direct a fresh consideration of compassionate appointment.

However, the appellant had been deprived of timely consideration under the applicable policy and the ex-gratia amount was ultimately released only in 2006. To balance the equities, the Court enhanced the period for which interest was payable, while retaining the rate of 9% per annum fixed by the First Appellate Court.

However, she was held entitled to interest at 9% per annum on Rs.2,50,000/- from 01.08.1998, the date of her husband’s death, until the date of actual disbursement of the ex-gratia amount, replacing the limited interest period awarded by the First Appellate Court.

The decree was directed to be modified accordingly, and the decree sheet was ordered to be prepared.