The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday set aside the Haryana government’s rejection of a long-pending compassionate assistance claim filed by Chander Mohan, the son of a deceased Food and Supplies Inspector. In a hearing that ran longer than expected, Justice Sandeep Moudgil examined two decades of departmental delay, old service disputes, and the human hardships behind the paperwork.
Background
Chander Mohan’s father, Ram Kishan, had a turbulent service history. He was first convicted in a criminal case, later acquitted, reinstated, and then again dismissed in 1989 after departmental proceedings. That dismissal was quashed by this very court in 2010, long after the employee had passed away in February 1995.
Read also: Karnataka High Court Quashes Caste-Probe Orders Against Retired Headmaster, Calls Civil Rights Cell
The family had applied for compassionate appointment back in the mid-90s, but the request remained stuck because the department insisted that Ram Kishan had “died as a dismissed employee.” Only after the 2010 ruling did the department release pension benefits. However, in 2012, the government rejected the son’s request for compassionate appointment, citing the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2006, which replaced jobs with financial aid.
Court’s Observations
During Thursday’s hearing, the judge repeatedly questioned the State’s reasoning. At one point, the bench observed, “Once the dismissal was set aside and the employee stood reinstated by legal fiction, how can you say he did not die in service?”
Read also: Gauhati High Court Partly Allows Appeals, Grants Only Retrospective Salary Benefits to Former
Justice Moudgil noted that the 2010 judgment effectively restored the service of the deceased employee up to the date of his death. That meant the family’s original claim fell squarely within the definition of a dependent of an employee who died while in service, a category entitled to compassionate assistance even under the 2006 Rules.
The courtroom momentarily turned silent when the judge remarked, almost conversationally, that humanitarian schemes “cannot be defeated by the government’s own delays.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India, the judge recalled that compassionate assistance is a welfare measure, not a bureaucratic favour. He read out a portion from the ruling emphasising that the law cannot ignore the sufferings of a family left without a breadwinner, especially due to technicalities.
Read also: Rajasthan High Court Orders Transfer of 63 Tribal Constables to TSP Areas After Years of Delay
Another major flaw, the court found, was the 2012 rejection order itself. It contained just a few lines, with no reasoning, no reference to the earlier judgment that reinstated service, and no discussion of the 2003 policy the petitioner relied on. The court criticised this, saying an authority deciding such sensitive matters must record proper reasons. As the judge put it, “An order without reasons shows no application of mind and violates fairness under Article 14.”
Justice Moudgil also pointed to Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules, which clearly states that all pending cases are to be considered under the 2006 framework and gives families the option to choose lump-sum ex-gratia benefits from earlier schemes.
Read also: Rajasthan High Court Orders Transfer of 63 Tribal Constables to TSP Areas After Years of Delay
Decision
In the end, the High Court quashed the rejection order dated 14/16 August 2012. Justice Moudgil allowed Chander Mohan’s writ petition and directed the Haryana government to provide financial assistance as per the 2006 Rules. The State has been given four weeks to comply after receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
Case Title: Chander Mohan vs. State of Haryana and Others
Case No.: CWP-19615-2012
Case Type: Civil Writ Petition (CWP)
Decision Date: 21 November 2025
