3 decades later, HC orders financial assistance to government employee’s family

Nearly 30 years after the government employee died, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered Haryana to release financial assistance to his family under the 2006 Compassionate Assistance Rules. The direction came as Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that the claim could not have been rejected in the manner done by the authorities and that the department had acted arbitrarily by ignoring the 2010 judgment which retrospectively restored the employee’s service.

Allowing the petition filed through counsel GPS Bal, Justice Moudgil directed the State to extend benefits within four weeks, while asserting that the authorities had wrongly relied on technical objections and a belated-application argument even though the claim had remained pending only because the department continued to insist—incorrectly—that the deceased stood dismissed.

The Bench asserted that long-pending claims could not be defeated through restrictive interpretations, particularly when the facts placed the family squarely within the protective ambit of the compassionate assistance framework.

The ruling came in a case where an inspector in the Food and Supplies Department was first convicted in a criminal case, but his conviction was set aside by the high court in May 1981. The SLP before the Supreme Court too was dismissed in December 1982 and he was reinstated in February 1984. He was dismissed again in December 1989 after a departmental inquiry. He challenged the dismissal in 1993, but died during the pendency of the petition in February 1995. In 2010, the high court quashed the dismissal, holding him deemed in service till death and directing the release of his retirement benefits.

Justice Moudgil asserted the dismissal of the petitioner’s father was quashed and he was held to be deemed in continuous service till the date of his death on February 22, 1995. “It is trite in service jurisprudence that when a punishment order is set aside, the legal fiction is that the employee was never dismissed, unless the Court restricts relief. Consequently, the petitioner’s father must be treated as having died while in service, bringing the case squarely within the ambit of compassionate assistance contemplated under the 2006 Rules.”

The Bench made it clear that the State’s reasoning was contrary to law. The authorities rejected the claim citing discontinuation of compassionate appointments under the 2006 Rules and alleging delay. Justice Moudgil rejected the approach by asserting: “This reasoning cannot be accepted as it is a settled principle that compassionate schemes, whether providing for appointment or financial assistance must be construed with a humanitarian approach, and the employer cannot defeat a legitimate claim by relying on its own administrative delays or by invoking subsequent restrictive amendments.”

Justice Moudgil added the delay was entirely attributable to the State. The petitioner’s mother approached the authorities after the death of her husband-employee. But the request remained pending solely because the respondents continued to take the stand that the employee stood dismissed.

The Bench added the department was duty-bound to consider the claim under the prevailing compassionate assistance framework once the dismissal was declared illegal. Construing the 2006 Rules, Justice Moudgil held: The Rules, if properly interpreted do not extinguish a pre-existing claim, rather, they provide a structured mechanism for financial support in lieu of compassionate appointment.”

Coming down heavily on the authorities, the Court asserted that the impugned order issued in August 2012 was non-speaking and perfunctory. “It does not consider the effect of the 2010 judgment, the retrospective restoration of service, the settled law on compassionate claims, or the humanitarian object underlying the scheme…. “An administrative authority exercising statutory discretion is required to record reasons that demonstrate meaningful application of mind. Failure to do so renders the action of the respondents arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

HC confirms humanitarian purpose of compassionate policies

Referring to the constitutional ethos behind compassionate schemes, Justice Moudgil asserted the policy was not a mere administrative concession but a Welfare State’s salutary instrument, intended to extend timely relief to families suddenly rendered destitute by the loss of their sole breadwinner in State service.

“Therefore its implementation calls for a broad, humane, and purposive interpretation, consistent with the constitutional obligation to protect those on the economic margins.”