The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that, for ex-gratia/compassionate appointment, the policy in force when the cause of action (death/disability/retirement) arises prevails, and subsequent policy changes cannot retrospectively deprive applicants of accrued rights. This judgment strictly follows and applies Supreme Court and High Court precedents, thereby serving as binding authority for similar matters involving public sector ex-gratia/compassionate appointments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/22548/2017 of PANKAJ KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA THR CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT OF HRY & ORS CNR PHHC010918922017 |
| Date of Registration | 29-09-2017 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench (MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled law and applies Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Compassionate/Ex-gratia Appointments in Public Employment |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The relevant policy for ex-gratia/compassionate appointment is the one prevailing at the time of the employee’s death, disability, or retirement, not any subsequently framed scheme unless expressly retrospective. Administrative delay in processing such claims cannot prejudice the applicant, nor can the employer cite later policy changes to deny benefits. The principle of promissory estoppel applies where dependent employees retire in expectation of the public employer’s assurance. Delay in approaching the writ court can be condoned if persistent efforts for justice are evident and the delay is explained. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Doctrine of promissory estoppel; settled law on prospective application of compassionate appointment schemes; administrative law principles on delay and laches in writ petitions; constitutional values of human dignity and responsive governance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner’s father, a UHBVNL employee, suffered 100% disability while on duty in 1999 and opted for medical retirement upon respondent’s assurance of petitioner’s ex-gratia appointment under existing policies. Petitioner’s claim was rejected in 2004 following a later policy change, with administrative delays and appeals culminating in the present writ. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana; directly governs all claims against Haryana public bodies concerning compassionate appointment. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court, and public sector employers/nigams applying similar service jurisprudence. |
| Follows | State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157; Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana 2012 (2) SCT 736 (FB); Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the prevailing policy at the time of employee death/disability/retirement governs ex-gratia/compassionate appointment claims – not subsequent policy changes unless expressly retrospective.
- Recognises administrative/departmental delay as insufficient to deprive applicants of accrued rights or to defeat legitimate expectation.
- Promissory estoppel applies where the public employer’s assurance led to resignation/retirement, even if later policy changes occur.
- Delay and laches will not defeat writ relief if persistent efforts are shown and trauma/family circumstances explain the delay.
- Condemns hyper-technical objections by public bodies and administrative apathy in processing compassionate claims.
- Affords compensation – not merely direction to appoint – where relief is no longer feasible due to candidate’s age.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether subsequent policy changes could retrospectively apply to defeat pending/earlier accrued rights to compassionate appointment, especially when the claimant acted based on then-existing policy and promissory assurances by the employer.
- Citing Supreme Court judgments (Ashish Awasthi, Promila, Amit Shrivas), the Court clarified that the policy applicable is the one existing at the time of the cause of action (death or medical retirement), and not the policy in force when the application is finally decided.
- The principle was reinforced by a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Krishna Kumari, which established that the objective of such schemes is to provide immediate relief, thus anchoring the right to the date of incapacitation/death.
- The Court relied on Pramod v. State of Maharashtra to further hold that promissory estoppel binds the employer where compassionate appointment is offered as part of the retirement/termination scheme, and cannot be defeated by subsequent withdrawal of the scheme.
- It was determined that administrative delay cannot be used to prejudice the claimant; applicants who made timely applications cannot be penalised for the employer’s slow decision-making.
- Delay or laches in filing writ petitions is not per se fatal if reasonable explanation exists, as ruled in P.V. Narayana; the Court has discretion to condone delay to prevent injustice, especially in compassionate appointment matters.
- A scathing observation was made regarding systemic administrative apathy and the failure of public authorities to act with compassion, fairness, and promptness in such sensitive cases.
- Since the petitioner could no longer be appointed due to age, compensation with interest was ordered as an appropriate remedy.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- At the time of accident/retirement, the policy providing ex-gratia appointment to dependents of disabled employees was in force.
- Petitioner’s father retired early based on the respondent’s explicit assurance of appointment of his son.
- Withdrawal of the policy occurred after rights had already accrued and cannot retrospectively defeat petitioner’s claim.
- Principle of promissory estoppel applies to the respondent’s offer.
- Delay in filing was due to continuous pursuit of relief and repeated representations.
Respondents (No. 2 to 6)
- The petition is barred by delay and laches, as rejection occurred in 2004, but the writ was filed in 2017.
- Claims such as petitioner’s were excluded by the new ex-gratia policy of 2003, which prevails.
- Policy changes superseded prior schemes, extinguishing petitioner’s eligibility.
- The ex-gratia scheme’s object is to tide over immediate crisis, not to create a vested long-term right.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s father, an Assistant Lineman with UHBVNL, suffered a 100% disability in a workplace accident in June 1999. Respondent offered an option: continue in service until superannuation or retire on medical grounds in exchange for the petitioner’s ex-gratia appointment under then-prevailing policies. The father opted for retirement in 2001 with assurance of the petitioner’s employment. However, in 2004, the claim was rejected by reference to a subsequent policy change (2003) that had abolished such benefits. The petitioner and his mother made repeated representations, culminating in rejection by the Managing Director in 2015, leading to the writ petition in 2017.
Statutory Analysis
- Policies of 23.11.1992 and 31.08.1995 provided for ex-gratia appointment of dependents of employees retired on medical grounds due to disability.
- Policy dated 31.03.2003, adopted 09.06.2003, expressly superseded prior policies but had no provision for retrospective application.
- Clause 19 of the 2003 policy stated all pre-existing instructions on appointments under ex-gratia scheme would stand repealed with the introduction of the 2003 policy.
- The judgment interprets the relevant scheme to mean “the one in force at the time of the event (death/retirement),” per binding precedents.
- No constitutional articles were interpreted beyond reference to Article 226 for writ jurisdiction; the judgment relies on equitable principles and the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment; the reasoning is by the single judge who authored the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court invoked its discretion under Article 226 to condone delay in filing the writ, focusing on the applicant’s persistent efforts and trauma.
- Compensation, with interest, was awarded as the primary relief, given the petitioner’s ineligibility for appointment due to age—an approach underscoring the power of constitutional courts to fashion equitable relief in unique circumstances.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Follows, affirms, and applies binding precedent of the Supreme Court and Full Bench decisions on compassionate appointment and retrospective application of policy.