Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Haryana Rule Deferring Compassionate Assistance For Kin Accused Of Murdering Govt Employee

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, which suspends compassionate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government employee when an eligible family member is accused of murdering or abetting the murder of the employee. However, the Court clarified that the provision does not apply to claims for compassionate appointment.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment while allowing an appeal filed by Atul Chauhan, whose claim for compassionate appointment had been kept in abeyance due to criminal proceedings against his mother, who was accused of conspiring in the murder of his father, a government school teacher in Haryana.

The Court held that Rule 23(1) is constitutionally valid because it serves a legitimate purpose of preventing compassionate financial assistance from being extended to a person who may be criminally responsible for the death that gives rise to the claim. The provision was described as “preventive and regulatory” rather than punitive and was found to have a rational nexus with its objective, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It held that the provision does not violate Article 14 because it merely postpones access to compassionate financial assistance until criminal proceedings conclude and serves the legitimate purpose of preventing a person who may be responsible for the employee's death from receiving benefits arising from that death.

The Court said, “A temporary, purpose-linked suspension of a statutory concession, confined to the duration of criminal proceedings, does not constitute invidious discrimination and does not offend Article 14.”

At the same time, the Bench ruled that the State authorities and the Punjab and Haryana High Court had erred in applying Rule 23(1) to a claim for compassionate appointment. The judges noted that the Rules of 2019 maintain a clear distinction between “compassionate financial assistance” and “compassionate appointment,” with separate definitions, eligibility criteria, procedures, and competent authorities governing each form of relief. Since Rule 23(1) expressly refers only to compassionate financial assistance, its operation cannot be extended to compassionate appointments through interpretation, the Court said.

The Court allowed an appeal filed by one Atul Chauhan and directed the Haryana authorities to consider his claim for compassionate appointment within three months.

Background

Chauhan's father, Gajender Singh Chauhan, a Junior Basic Teacher in Haryana, died in September 2021 in a road accident that was later treated as a murder case. Chauhan's mother was prosecuted for allegedly conspiring in the murder. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the authorities kept the family's claim for compassionate benefits in abeyance. Although the mother was acquitted in October 2024 on the benefit of doubt, an appeal against her acquittal is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Relying on Rule 23(1) of the 2019 Rules, the Director of Elementary Education deferred consideration of Chauhan's request for compassionate appointment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld that decision. It also held that the widow had the first right to claim compassionate benefits and that the son's claim could arise only after her claim was finally determined.

Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that Rule 23(1) applies only to compassionate financial assistance and not to compassionate appointment.

SC disagrees with HC view

The Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right and remains subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable scheme. However, the Court emphasised that the same principle also restricts the State from rejecting or postponing a claim on grounds not contemplated by the governing rules.

“The State cannot deny or defer a claim for compassionate appointment by invoking a provision which, on a proper reading of the rules, applies only to a different form of relief. The strict construction required of the claimant is matched, in equal measure, by the requirement that the authority exercise only such power as the rules confer upon it. This assumes even greater significance when viewed in light of the underlying humanitarian object of compassionate appointment. Time and again, this Court has underscored that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family of a deceased employee and to alleviate the sudden financial distress”, the Court stated.

The Court noted that the heading of Rule 23 specifically refers to the "Regulation of compassionate financial assistance in case of criminal proceedings" and that the provision repeatedly uses the expression "compassionate financial assistance" without referring to compassionate appointment.

Rejecting the State's argument that the rule should be interpreted purposively to cover both forms of relief, the Court observed, “The language of Rule 23(1) is unambiguous and admits of only one reading. The provision employs the expression 'compassionate financial assistance', and that expression alone throughout.”

It further said, “Purposive construction is a tool to resolve genuine ambiguity; it is not a licence to override an unambiguous text or to introduce provisions which the legislature/State has not seen fit to introduce. The text here is clear and specific, and we are bound to give effect to it.”

It added that reading compassionate appointment into the provision “would not be an act of statutory interpretation; it would be an act of judicial legislation.”

The Court noted that the Rules of 2019 maintain a clear distinction between compassionate financial assistance and compassionate appointment. They are separately defined, governed by different procedures and administered by different authorities. This legislative structure showed that the omission of compassionate appointment from Rule 23 was deliberate, the Court said.

The Court also disagreed with the High Court's finding that the widow's claim had to be decided first before the son's claim could be considered.

Examining the scheme of the Rules, the Court noted that the definition of "family" for compassionate financial assistance under Rule 5(1)(f) contains a cascading hierarchy through the repeated use of the word "failing", meaning that lower-ranked claimants can be considered only if higher-ranked claimants are unavailable. However, the corresponding definition of "family" for compassionate appointment under Rule 5(1)(g) contains no such language.

The Court noted that Rule 5(1)(g) merely identifies eligible family members and does not create an absolute sequential bar in favour of the widow.

The Court observed, “The absence of the 'failing' formulation in Rule 5(1)(g) means that Rule 5(1)(g) defines who constitutes 'family' for compassionate appointment purposes, not that each category can be considered only to the exclusion of the others or only upon the sequential failure of those listed above it.”

The Court also noted that the appellant's mother and brother had filed affidavits relinquishing their claims in favour of the appellant, but neither the authorities nor the High Court had given due effect to those affidavits.

At the same time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1). The Court also said that Rule 23(1) regarding compassionate financial assistance does not apply in the present case which concerns compassionate appointment.

While ruling in favour of the appellant, the Court pointed out an anomaly in the 2019 Rules. It observed that compassionate financial assistance, which is a lesser benefit, is expressly suspended during criminal proceedings relating to the employee's death, whereas compassionate appointment, which provides permanent public employment and long-term service benefits, is not subject to any similar restriction.

The Court observed that this could create confusion and litigation and suggested that the State Government consider amending the Rules to address the legislative gap. However, it clarified that courts cannot fill that gap by adding words to the Rules.

Allowing the appeal, the Court directed the State authorities to consider and decide Chauhan's claim for compassionate appointment on its own merits in accordance with the Rules within three months.

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25892 of 2025

Case Title – Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 630