INTRODUCTION
In Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2026 INSC 640, decided on 11 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongeikapam Kotiswar Singh, examined the scope of Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1)[1]. The Court clarified its limited applicability and emphasized the distinction between compassionate financial assistance and compassionate appointment.
BRIEF FACTS
In this case Appellant’s Father, a government school teacher in Haryana, died in a road accident under suspicious circumstances on 28.09.2021. The Appellant’s Mother was subsequently charged with conspiring in his murder under section 302(Punishment for Murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Due to the pending criminal proceedings against the Appellant’s Mother, the authorities withheld compassionate benefits under Rule 23(1) of the 2019 Rules.
Subsequently, the Appellant’s Mother was later acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Session Court on the basis of “benefit of doubt”, an Appeal against her acquittal remained pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Despite the acquittal, the State kept the Appellant’s request for compassionate appointment in abeyance. The Appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13053 of 2025 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1) and sought consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Appellant Petition, holding the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1), held that the suspension of compassionate benefits during the pendency of criminal proceedings is legally justified. Aggrieved by the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
- Whether the Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 is constitutionally valid.
- Whether the Rule 23(1), which specifically refers to compassionate financial assistance, can also be applied to claims for compassionate appointment.
- Whether the Appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment could be delayed because the claim of his mother had not attained finality.
ANALYSIS
Distinction Between Compassionate Appointment and Compassionate Financial Assistance
The Supreme Court observed that the Rule of 2019 create two separate forms of relief, namely compassionate financial assistance and compassionate appointment. Both forms of reliefs have distinct definitions, edibility criteria, procedure and competent authorities.
The Apex Court noted that Rule 23(1) repeatedly uses the expression “compassionate financial assistance” and makes no reference to compassionate appointment. Consequently, extending its operation to compassionate appointment would amount to judicial legislation rather than interpretation.
Compassionate Appointment is not vested Right
Reiterating settled law, the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is not an inheritable or vested right. It is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial hardship after the death of a government employee. However, any decision regarding such appointment must be based strictly on the governing rules.
No Sequential Bar Under Rule 5(1)(g)
The Supreme Court observed a substantial aspect of the Judgement concern the interpretation of Rule 5(1)(g)(Family for the purpose of compassionate appointment) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019. The Apex Court distinguished it from Rule 5(1)(f) (Family for the purpose of compassionate financial assistance) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 from 5(1)(g), which contains a classified structure through the repetitive use of the word “failing”, thereby creating a sequential order of entitlement for financial assistance. In Rule 5(1)(g), which governs compassionate appointment, contains no such language. Accordingly, the Court held that the existence of a surviving widow does not automatically prevent consideration of a child’s claim for compassionate appointment, particularly where the widow has expressly relinquished her claim.
Constitutional Validity of Rule 23(1)
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1). Th Court reasoned that the provision is preventive rather than punitive. The rule merely delays the grant of compassionate financial assistance until the conclusion of criminal proceeding against the Appellant’s Mother for allegedly murdering or abetting the murder of her husband i.e., Deceased government employee. The classification created by the rule was found to have a rational link with its objective of preventing a potentially culpable individual from benefiting from the death of the government employee. Consequently, the provision does not violate Article 14(Equality before Law) of the Indian Constitution.
Legislative Irregularity Highlighted
The Supreme Court pointed out an irregularity of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019. While compassionate financial assistance can be suspended during criminal proceedings, there is no corresponding restriction on compassionate appointment, which is a much greater and longer-term benefit. The Apex Court recommended that the State Government consider amending the Rules to address this legislative gap.
TRISHMA KASHYAP
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Service
Editor’s Comments
By this Judgement the Supreme Court partly disagreed with the Punjab and Haryana High Court reasoning and held that Rule 23(1) applies only to compassionate financial assistance and not to compassionate appointment. While upholding the constitutional validity of the Rule 23(1), the Apex Court clarified that it could not be invoked to keep the Appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment in abeyance. The Judgement supports the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted according to their plain language and that courts cannot expand the scope of a rule beyond what the legislature has expressly provided. At the same time, the Supreme Court decision highlights the need for legislative reform to remove irregularities within compassionate appointment schemes.
Sushila Ram Varma
Advocate and Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
[1] (1) Where a is family eligible member, who in the event of death while in service of a Government employee, is eligible to receive compassionate the offence of murdering financial assistance, is charged with the Government employee or for abetting in the commission of such an offence, the compassionate the claim of financial such member, including other eligible member(s) of the family to receive assistance, shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Hit and Run Case Explained: Punishment, Bail & Legal Process” can be viewed at the link below: