Compassionate Appointment Rights Crystallise on Death: P&H High Court Rejects Retrospective Policy Shift & Orders Reconsideration
Case Name: Santosh Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 17 March 2026
Citation: CWP-23203-2011
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the right to compassionate appointment crystallises on the date of death of the employee and must be governed by the policy prevailing at that time. Subsequent policy changes cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat vested rights.
Summary: The petitioner sought appointment of her son on compassionate grounds following the death of her husband, who was employed as an Assistant Lineman and died in harness on 10.05.2005. At the relevant time, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 were in force, which provided for ex-gratia appointment.
The petitioner completed all formalities within time, and the case for appointment of her son was duly recommended. However, before a final decision could be taken, the State introduced the 2006 Rules, which replaced compassionate appointment with financial assistance. Relying on these Rules, the authorities denied appointment and offered lump-sum monetary assistance instead.
The petitioner challenged the rejection, contending that her claim ought to be governed by the 2003 Rules, which were in force at the time of her husband’s death. She further pointed out that similarly situated dependents had been granted compassionate appointments even after the introduction of the 2006 Rules.
The High Court observed that the compassionate appointment process in the present case had already commenced under the 2003 Rules and that the petitioner had fulfilled all procedural requirements without delay. It further held that the principle governing such claims is well-settled: the applicable policy is the one in force on the date of death of the employee.
The Court rejected the argument of retrospective application of the 2006 Rules, holding that vested rights accrued under the earlier policy cannot be taken away unless expressly provided. It also found that denial of similar benefit to the petitioner, while granting it to other similarly situated individuals, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment of her son strictly in accordance with the 2003 Rules within three months.