Rule 23(1) suspension does not bar compassionate appointment, holds Supreme Court

A Supreme Court division bench held that Rule 23(1) of Haryana’s 2019 Rules suspends only financial assistance during criminal proceedings, not compassionate appointment, and set aside the High Court order.

The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Atul Chauhan, whose claim for compassionate appointment had been kept in abeyance because his mother faced a murder charge connected to his father’s death. In Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2026 INSC 640), a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, suspends only the claim for compassionate financial assistance during pending criminal proceedings. It does not, by its text, reach a claim for compassionate appointment. The Court set aside a 12 May 2025 judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and directed the State to decide Chauhan’s claim on its merits within three months, uninfluenced by Rule 23(1).

How the dispute reached the Court

Chauhan’s father, Gajender Singh Chauhan, was a Junior Basic Teacher at a government primary school in District Palwal from 1997. He died on 28 September 2021 in a road accident under suspicious circumstances. Chauhan’s mother, Pushpa Devi, was booked under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that she had conspired in his murder. A trial followed in SC No. 80 of 2022 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Palwal.

Pushpa Devi swore an affidavit stating that post-death benefits could be issued to her sons and that she had no objection to the benefits being extended to them. The family approached the school authorities. The Director of Elementary Education, by communication dated 4 May 2022, said the wife of the deceased was not entitled to benefits under the Rules of 2019, and directed that documents relating to the major children’s claim be submitted.

Chauhan first moved the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 24711 of 2023, which was disposed of on 3 November 2023 with a direction to decide his representation in accordance with law.

On 14 October 2024, Pushpa Devi was acquitted of the charge under Section 302. The acquittal was on the basis of benefit of doubt, not an honourable acquittal. The complainant, Mahender Singh, the deceased’s brother, appealed against the acquittal before the High Court in CRM-A No. 119 of 2025, in which notice was issued. The criminal proceedings remained sub judice.

The Director of Elementary Education kept Chauhan’s claim in abeyance until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, then declined it by a revised order dated 7 February 2025. Chauhan then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13053 of 2025, challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 23(1) and seeking consideration of his claim despite the pending criminal appeal. The High Court, on 12 May 2025, upheld Rule 23(1) and dismissed the petition, holding the claim premature and that the widow held the first right under Rule 5(1)(f).

What the Court held on the text of Rule 23(1)

The Court framed the decisive question as whether Rule 23(1) applies to a claim for compassionate appointment. Its answer was in the negative. The provision uses the expression “compassionate financial assistance” throughout, and its marginal heading is equally explicit. Rule 23(2), dealing with the consequences of conviction or acquittal, also confines itself to financial assistance. Nowhere in Rule 23 does the expression “compassionate appointment” appear.

The Court rejected the State’s argument for a purposive reading. Purposive construction, it said, resolves genuine ambiguity and is not a licence to override an unambiguous text. To read appointment into a provision speaking only of financial assistance “would be an act of judicial legislation.” If the rule-making authority intended the bar to extend to appointment, it could have said so explicitly under Article 309.

The structural separation of the two reliefs

The Court traced how the Rules of 2019 keep the two forms of relief distinct across their entire architecture. Rule 5(1)(a) defines compassionate financial assistance as monthly assistance; Rule 5(1)(b) defines compassionate appointment as a post in Group C or D. The definitions of “family” differ between Rule 5(1)(f) and Rule 5(1)(g). Rules 7 and 8 govern appointment; Rules 36 to 39 govern financial assistance. Separate competent authorities are designated in Rule 9 and Rule 37.

Against this background, the omission of “compassionate appointment” from Rule 23(1) was treated as deliberate and intentional, not inadvertent.

The “failing” language and the widow’s priority

The High Court had relied on Rule 5(1)(f) to hold that the widow’s claim must be conclusively determined before Chauhan’s claim could be considered. The Court found this a misreading. Rule 5(1)(f), governing financial assistance, uses a cascading structure in which each tier is prefaced with the word “failing” the preceding tier. That word creates a strict sequential bar.

Rule 5(1)(g), governing appointment, contains no “failing” language. It is drafted as a plain list of family members — widow or widower, children, and dependent siblings of an unmarried deceased. Because the drafters used the cascading mechanism meticulously in Rule 5(1)(f) but not in Rule 5(1)(g), that choice had to be given effect. No absolute bar prevents consideration of the children’s claim while the widow’s claim remains undetermined.

The Court added that Pushpa Devi and Chauhan’s brother, Jai Chauhan, had executed affidavits relinquishing their claims, and the respondents and the High Court erred in not giving them effect.

Constitutional validity and the legislative anomaly

The Court held Rule 23(1) constitutionally valid in its proper domain. It found the provision preventive and regulatory rather than penal, deferring rather than extinguishing the right to financial assistance, with a rational nexus to the object of preventing access by a person possibly culpable for the death. The constitutional challenge, as directed at applying the rule to appointment, was rendered academic because the rule does not operate in that field. Validity and applicability, the Court said, are distinct questions.

The Court flagged an anomaly. Financial assistance, the lesser relief, carries an express suspension clause during criminal proceedings, while compassionate appointment, the greater relief with lifelong service benefits and pension, carries no corresponding provision. It said it could not remedy this by reading in a provision the rule-making authority had not framed, and called on the State Government of Haryana to address the lacuna by amending the Rules under Article 309.

Order

The Civil Appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment dated 12 May 2025 was set aside. The respondents were directed to consider and decide Chauhan’s claim for compassionate appointment on its merits, strictly in accordance with the eligibility conditions and procedures under the Rules of 2019, within three months, uninfluenced by Rule 23(1).

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the criminal proceedings in CRM-A No. 119 of 2025, and that the direction conferred no absolute right to appointment, the claim remaining subject to eligibility, availability of a post, and other prescribed requirements. Pending applications were disposed of.