JOLT TO HARYANA GOVT: Father Killed, Mother Accused—SC Says State Wrong on Son’s Compassionate Job Claim
Jolt to Haryana Govt: The Supreme Court has ruled that Haryana wrongly blocked a youth’s compassionate appointment claim by invoking a rule meant only for financial assistance. The case involves a teacher allegedly murdered by his wife in Palwal.
Arvind Chhabra
Chandigarh, June 23
A Haryana youth whose father was allegedly killed in a murder conspiracy involving his own mother has won a significant ruling from the Supreme Court, which held that the state government had wrongly blocked his claim for a compassionate government appointment by invoking a rule that simply did not apply to his case.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered last week, set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order and directed Haryana to consider Atul Chauhan’s claim for compassionate appointment on merits within three months — uninfluenced by the criminal proceedings pending against his mother.
Bike hit by car
Atul’s father, Gajender Singh Chauhan, was a Junior Basic Teacher at a government primary school in Palwal district. On September 28, 2021, he died in what was described as a road accident. His motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding car. But police suspected foul play. Atul’s mother, Pushpa Devi, was subsequently charged under Section 302 of the IPC for allegedly conspiring in her husband’s murder.
A full trial followed before the Additional Sessions Court in Palwal. In October 2024, Pushpa Devi was acquitted — but not honourably. The acquittal was on benefit of doubt. The deceased’s brother, Mahender Singh, has since challenged that acquittal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the appeal remains pending.
Meanwhile, Atul had been fighting since 2022 to secure a compassionate appointment. It’s a government job given to the family of an employee who dies in service, to prevent financial destitution. Both his mother and brother signed affidavits relinquishing their claims in his favour. But Haryana kept his application in abeyance, citing a rule that suspends compassionate benefits during criminal proceedings.
Where Haryana Got It Wrong
Jolt to Haryana Govt: This is where the case gets legally significant — and the Supreme Court was blunt about it.
Haryana’s Compassionate Appointment Rules of 2019 make a clear distinction between two types of relief: compassionate financial assistance, which is a monthly monetary payment, and compassionate appointment, which is a permanent government job.
Rule 23(1) of those rules — the provision Haryana invoked to block Atul — specifically suspends compassionate financial assistance when a family member is charged with the murder of the deceased employee. The rule says nothing, anywhere, about compassionate appointment.
The Supreme Court held that applying Rule 23(1) to block a job claim was simply bad law. The rule’s heading, its text, and every sub-clause speak only of financial assistance. Reading it to also cover appointment would not be interpretation, the court said — it would be judicial legislation.
The Paradox Haryana Must Now Fix
Jolt to Haryana Govt: The court did not stop there. It flagged an uncomfortable anomaly in Haryana’s own rules: a family member accused of murdering a government employee cannot receive a modest monthly payment during the trial — but can, on a plain reading of the current rules, be considered for a permanent government job with salary, pension, and lifetime benefits during the same period.
The Supreme Court called this incongruous and strongly advised Haryana to amend the Rules of 2019 to address the gap. But it was equally clear that it could not fix the anomaly itself — that was the state’s job.
READ ALSO: Why Govt Bid to Cut Haryana NCR Area Failed
What the Court Ordered
Jolt to Haryana Govt: Haryana must now consider Atul Chauhan’s compassionate appointment claim on its merits within three months. The court clarified this does not guarantee him the job — he must still meet all eligibility conditions. But the state cannot use Rule 23(1), or the pendency of his mother’s criminal appeal, as a reason to keep his application frozen.
The court also made clear that its ruling has no bearing on the criminal proceedings against Pushpa Devi, which continue independently before the High Court.
READ: Haryana Police Brutality: Dalit Advocate Stripped, Cops Held Gun To His Head; HC Monitors Case
Follow North Desk on WhatsApp for the latest from Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb7ccdxJENy2H87DBG3E
