The Supreme Court compassionate appointment Haryana Rules judgment clarifies that Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 applies only to compassionate financial assistance and not to compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment and directed the Haryana Government to consider Atul Chauhan’s claim for compassionate appointment on its merits within three months.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment on June 11, 2026, in Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh authored the judgment.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose after Atul Chauhan’s father, Gajender Singh Chauhan, a Junior Basic Teacher at Government Primary School, Gudhrana, died in a road accident on September 28, 2021.
Police later booked Atul Chauhan’s mother, Pushpa Devi, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly conspiring to murder her husband. The Additional District and Sessions Court, Palwal, conducted the criminal trial.
Pushpa Devi later filed an affidavit stating that authorities could release post-death benefits in favour of her sons. She also expressed no objection to extending compassionate benefits to them.
In May 2022, the Director of Elementary Education informed the authorities that the widow was not entitled to benefits under the 2019 Rules and instructed them to process the claims of eligible children.
After obtaining directions from the High Court to decide his representation, Atul Chauhan renewed his request for compassionate appointment.
Although the trial court acquitted Pushpa Devi on October 14, 2024, the acquittal rested on the benefit of doubt. An appeal against that judgment remains pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Authorities kept Chauhan’s claim pending because of the criminal proceedings and later rejected it. He then challenged Rule 23(1) before the High Court, which dismissed his petition.
Parties’ Submissions
Counsel for Atul Chauhan argued that Rule 23(1) governs only compassionate financial assistance. It does not regulate compassionate appointment under Rule 7.
The appellant also argued that the 2019 Rules clearly distinguish between financial assistance and compassionate appointment. He relied on affidavits executed by his mother and brother, who relinquished their claims in his favour.
The State of Haryana argued that both benefits form part of a single welfare scheme and should receive a harmonious interpretation.
According to the State, excluding compassionate appointment from Rule 23(1) could allow a person facing criminal allegations to obtain government employment while remaining ineligible for financial assistance.
Supreme Court: Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Vested Right
The Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure and not a vested or hereditary right.
Referring to earlier decisions, the Court observed that compassionate appointment aims to provide immediate relief to families facing financial hardship after the death of a government employee.
However, the Court clarified that authorities can deny or defer such claims only by relying on provisions that actually govern compassionate appointment.
The Bench observed:
“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.”
Rule 23(1) Applies Only to Financial Assistance
The Court held that Rule 23(1) contains clear language and applies exclusively to compassionate financial assistance.
It noted that both the heading and the text of Rule 23 mention only compassionate financial assistance. They make no reference to compassionate appointment.
The judgment stated:
“To read the former as including the latter would not be an act of statutory interpretation; it would be an act of judicial legislation.”
The Bench rejected the State’s argument that purposive interpretation could expand the scope of the provision beyond its plain language.
The Supreme Court compassionate appointment Haryana Rules ruling makes it clear that courts cannot extend statutory provisions beyond their express wording.
Distinction Between Two Forms of Relief
The Supreme Court pointed out that the 2019 Rules consistently treat compassionate financial assistance and compassionate appointment as separate benefits.
Rule 5(1)(a) defines compassionate financial assistance.
Rule 5(1)(b) separately defines compassionate appointment.
Rules 5(1)(f) and 5(1)(g) provide separate definitions of “family” for each benefit.
Different authorities and procedures govern each form of relief.
According to the Court, this deliberate distinction shows that the rule-making authority intentionally excluded compassionate appointment from Rule 23(1).
High Court Erred in Applying Sequential Priority
The Supreme Court also found that the High Court wrongly relied on Rule 5(1)(f), which applies only to compassionate financial assistance.
The Court noted that Rule 5(1)(f) uses the word “failing” to create a sequential order among claimants. Rule 5(1)(g), which governs compassionate appointment, contains no such restriction.
The Bench also observed that Pushpa Devi and Jai Chauhan had already relinquished their claims through affidavits. Authorities should have given due effect to those documents.
Rule 23(1) Remains Constitutionally Valid
Although the Court ruled in favour of the appellant, it upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1).
The Bench held that the provision serves a preventive and regulatory purpose. It does not violate Article 14 because it aims to prevent potentially culpable persons from receiving compassionate financial assistance during pending criminal proceedings.
However, the Court clarified that constitutional validity does not expand the scope of the provision beyond financial assistance.
Supreme Court Flags Legislative Gap
The Bench observed that the Rules suspend compassionate financial assistance during criminal proceedings but impose no similar restriction on compassionate appointment.
The Court noted that this difference could create confusion and future litigation. It urged the Haryana Government to consider amending the Rules under Article 309 to address the issue.
Final Directions
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated May 12, 2025.
The Court directed the authorities to examine Atul Chauhan’s claim for compassionate appointment under the 2019 Rules within three months.
It also directed the authorities to decide the claim without relying on Rule 23(1).
Finally, the Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the pending criminal appeal and had not conferred any absolute right to compassionate appointment. The authorities must still examine eligibility, availability of posts, and other statutory conditions.
