The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings against a deceased employee’s widow cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment to the son. Allowing Atul Chauhan’s appeal, the Court directed consideration of his claim under applicable Haryana service rules.
The Supreme Court, while examining the Haryana government’s rules, held that criminal proceedings against a deceased employee’s widow cannot be used to reject a son’s request for compassionate appointment.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal of Atul Chauhan. The state had kept his plea for compassionate appointment pending after his mother was accused of conspiring in the murder of his father a government school teacher in Haryana.
In its order, the Court observed:
“No legal impediment to the Respondents considering and deciding the Appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment on its own merits, strictly in accordance with the eligibility conditions and requirements prescribed under the Rules of 2019.”
The Court further noted that a Haryana rule which suspends benefits during such proceedings is applicable only to financial assistance and not to appointments.
The apex court set aside a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. That High Court had upheld the application of Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, to Atul’s case. The Supreme Court directed the state authorities to evaluate Atul’s claim on merits within three months.
Atul’s father, Gajender Singh Chauhan, a junior basic teacher, died in September 2021 in a road accident. After his death, Gajender’s wife, Pushpa Devi, was later charged with conspiring in his murder. Although a trial court acquitted her in October 2024 on the benefit of doubt, an appeal against her acquittal is still pending.
The authorities had refused to process Atul’s compassionate appointment claim by citing Rule 23(1), which suspends compassionate financial assistance when a family member is accused of murdering or abetting the murder of the deceased employee.
While interpreting the provision, the Supreme Court held that the wording was limited to “compassionate financial assistance” and could not be broadened to cover compassionate appointments.
As the bench stated:
“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,”
The top court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1). It said the rule was preventive and regulatory in character and had a rational connection to the objective of ensuring that someone who may be responsible for the employee’s death does not immediately receive compassionate financial benefits.
The Court also suggested that the Haryana government may consider amending the rules to cure the “legislative gap.” At the same time, it clarified that compassionate appointment is not an automatic entitlement. It said the authorities would still need to assess Atul’s eligibility and other requirements under the rules before making a final decision on his claim.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE