P&H High Court Quashes Rejection Of Compassionate Assistance; Says Employee Deemed To Have Died In Service After Dismissal Order Was Quashed

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the State's decision rejecting a man's claim for compassionate assistance, holding that once the dismissal of his deceased father (a government employee) was quashed by the Court, he must be deemed to have died while in service—bringing the family within the ambit of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2006.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the impugned order passed in 2012 denying the petitioner's claim and directed the authorities to extend financial assistance under the 2006 Rules within four weeks.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "It is trite in service jurisprudence that when a punishment order is set aside, the legal fiction is that the employee was never dismissed, unless the Court restricts relief. Consequently, the petitioner's father must be treated as having died while in service, bringing the case squarely within the ambit of compassionate assistance contemplated under the 2006 Rules."

The plea was filed by the son of late Shri Ram Kishan, an Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department. Ram Kishan was initially convicted in a criminal case, but his conviction was set aside by the High Court in 1981, and the Supreme Court dismissed the State's SLP in 1982. He was reinstated in service in 1984.

He was later dismissed through departmental proceedings in 1989, which he challenged in a writ petition in 1993. During its pendency, he passed away in 1995. In 2010, the High Court allowed the writ, quashed the dismissal, and held that he must be deemed to have continued in service till his death. Following this, while pensionary benefits were released to his widow, the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment—pending since 1996—was rejected in 2012 under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2006. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the High Court.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary, non-speaking, and based on an incorrect application of the 2006 Rules.

He contended that the claim arose in 1996 and should have been governed by the 2003 ex-gratia appointment scheme and the delay occurred only because the department treated the employee as dismissed until the 2010 judgment.

Once the dismissal was quashed and the father deemed to be in service on the date of death, the petitioner became entitled to compassionate benefit, he added

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment, or alternatively, financial assistance under the applicable rules.

The State argued that the Compassionate appointments were abolished after the 2006 Rules came into force, and the petitioner's claim in 2012 had to be examined under these rules.

The employee was not in service on the date of death, as he had been dismissed in 1989. The petitioner applied belatedly and beyond the limitation period prescribed earlier, she added.

The Court rejected the State's reasoning, observing that the 2010 judgment quashing the dismissal order created a legal fiction that the employee had never been dismissed. Therefore, he must be deemed to have died in harness in 1995.

This fact alone, the Court observed, brought the case directly within the scope of the 2006 Rules.

Humanitarian Approach Required; Department Can't Benefit From Its Own Delay

Holding that compassionate schemes must be implemented with a humanitarian and purposive approach, the Court noted that the family's request remained pending for years only because the department insisted that the employee stood dismissed.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Balbir Kaur v. SAIL (2000) 6 SCC 493, emphasising that compassionate assistance is a social welfare measure meant to provide immediate succour to distressed families and cannot be denied through technical or hyper-technical objections.

"It must be borne in mind that the policy of compassionate appointment is not a mere administrative concession but a salutary instrument of the Welfare State, intended to extend timely relief to families suddenly rendered destitute by the loss of their sole breadwinner in State service. Therefore its implementation calls for a broad, humane, and purposive interpretation, consistent with the constitutional obligation to protect those on the economic margins," the judge said.

Justice Moudgil opined that such families deserve considerate treatment, not the burden of technical objections or rigid procedural niceties, particularly where such objections run contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Rule 5 provides for financial assistance equivalent to last drawn salary of deceased 

Rule 6 expressly states that all pending cases fall under the 2006 Rules, and dependants may opt for a lump-sum benefit under earlier schemes.

Thus, the petitioner's pending request could not have been rejected.

"The 2006 Rules if properly interpreted do not extinguish a pre- existing claim, rather, they provide a structured mechanism for financial support in lieu of compassionate appointment. Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules expressly enables dependants of deceased employees to receive financial assistance equivalent to the last drawn salary. Also, Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules clarify that all the pending cases, such as that of the petitioner shall be covered under the 2006 Rules and the same cannot be denied by the respondents," the judge added.

The Court held that the rejection order was perfunctory and failed to consider relevant facts, including the 2010 judgment reinstating the deceased employee for all purposes. Citing Assistant Commissioner v. Shukla & Bros. (2010) 4 SCC 785, the Court reiterated that administrative decisions must record clear reasons.

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the impugned order and said that the respondents shall extend financial assistance to the petitioner as per the 2006 Rules.

Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms.Ruchi Sekhri,Addl. A.G Haryana

Title: CHANDER MOHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Click here to read order