Why Supreme Court Urged Haryana To Amend Compassionate Appointment Rules In Cases Involving Alleged Murder Of Govt Employees

The Supreme Court recently urged the Haryana Government to examine and rectify a “significant anomaly” in the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, after noting that the scheme suspends compassionate financial assistance during criminal proceedings relating to the death of a government employee but contains no similar restriction on compassionate appointment.Rule 23(1) of the 2019 Rules suspends compassionate financial assistance when a family member eligible to receive it is charged with murdering or abetting the murder of a government employee. However, there is no corresponding provision for compassionate appointment.“The Rules of 2019 truly present an anomaly: the lesser form of compassionate relief, financial assistance, carries an express suspension clause under Rule 23(1) in cases of criminal proceedings for the murder of the deceased employee, while the substantially greater form of relief, compassionate appointment, with its lifelong service benefits, pension, and emoluments, carries no corresponding provision. It is strongly desirable that the Rule-making authority/State Government of Haryana address this legislative lacuna by introducing appropriate amendments to the Rules of 2019,” the Court said.The Court highlighted that the Rules, as currently framed, can lead to a situation where a family member accused of involvement in the death of a government employee may be barred from receiving monthly financial assistance while criminal proceedings are pending, but may still be considered for a permanent government job during the same period.The Court said this inconsistency is capable of creating confusion, administrative difficulties and avoidable litigation.A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by one Atul Chauhan, whose claim for compassionate appointment had been kept in abeyance because his mother had been prosecuted for allegedly conspiring in the murder of his father, a government school teacher.The Court held that Rule 23(1) of the 2019 Rules provides only for suspension of compassionate financial assistance in such cases, and not suspension of compassionate appointment. Having reached that conclusion, the Court noted that the statutory scheme itself reveals a legislative gap that may require correction by the State Government.The Court observed that compassionate appointment is a substantially greater benefit than compassionate financial assistance. While financial assistance consists of monthly monetary payments intended to help a family tide over an immediate crisis, compassionate appointment results in permanent entry into government service and carries long-term benefits such as regular salary, promotion prospects, pension, gratuity and other service benefits.“It would appear, on the face of it, incongruous that the Rule-making authority/legislature saw fit to suspend even the lesser form of relief, i.e., financial assistance, during the pendency of criminal proceedings for the alleged murder of the deceased employee, while providing no analogous safeguard in respect of the far greater form of relief, viz., permanent public employment,” the Court.Observing that the issue falls within the domain of policy-making, the Court urged the Haryana Government to address the gap by introducing appropriate provisions governing compassionate appointment in cases where a family member is charged with, or is facing criminal proceedings relating to, the murder or abetment of the murder of the deceased employee.At the same time, the Court stressed that this defect cannot be cured through judicial interpretation. Since Rule 23(1) expressly refers only to compassionate financial assistance, the Court held that it cannot be expanded judicially to cover compassionate appointment.“The judicial function is to apply the law as it is. It is for the Rule-making authority/State and the executive, in exercise of the rule-making power under Article 309, to clarify and rectify the legislative lacunae,” the Court observed.Case no. – Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25892 of 2025Case Title – Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 630Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Why Supreme Court Urged Haryana To Amend Compassionate Appointment Rules In Cases Involving Alleged Murder Of Govt Employees

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Why Supreme Court Urged Haryana To Amend Compassionate Appointment Rules In Cases Involving Alleged Murder Of Govt Employees

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers