‘Disregard To Human Dignity’: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams UHBVNL For Two-Decade Delay In Ex Gratia Appointment, Orders ₹7.5 Lakh Compensation With Interest
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has strongly criticized the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) for its “disregard to human dignity” and “administrative apathy” in denying a legitimate ex gratia appointment to the dependent of a disabled employee for more than two decades. The Court directed UHBVNL to pay Rs.7.5 lakh as compensation with 6% annual interest to the petitioner within two months, holding that his claim for employment was wrongly rejected under a policy not applicable to his case. Justice Brar noted that the employee had accepted medical retirement based on the assurance of his son’s appointment, and the authority’s prolonged inaction amounted to unjust denial of livelihood and compassionate relief.
The petitioner, son of a former Assistant Lineman employed with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL), approached the High Court seeking relief after his request for appointment under the ex gratia scheme was denied. His father, while repairing an electric pole in June 1999, sustained a severe electric shock due to the accidental switching on of the main line, resulting in 100% permanent disability confirmed by medical boards at PGI Rohtak and the Civil Surgeon, Sonepat. Subsequently, UHBVNL offered the disabled employee two options—continuation in service till superannuation or retirement on medical grounds with assurance of employment to his dependent son. The father opted for medical retirement, and his son’s case for appointment was processed under the ex gratia policies dated November 23, 1992, and August 31, 1995, both in force at that time.
In 2004, the petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, contained no provision for dependents of medically retired employees. Subsequent representations by the petitioner’s mother, including one to the Chief Minister in 2015, were also declined.
The petitioner contended that the 1992 and 1995 policies governed his case and that the subsequent 2003 policy could not apply retrospectively. He invoked the principle of promissory estoppel, asserting that his father retired upon an official assurance of employment to his dependent. The respondents maintained that the claim was time-barred, that the 2003 policy superseded previous schemes, and that no right accrued to the petitioner after its enforcement.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar recorded that “the father of the petitioner suffered a disability to the extent of 100% in a work-related accident that occurred on 02.06.1999” and that “he consented to early retirement on medical grounds and vide letter dated 31.07.2001, it was decided to employ the petitioner under the ex-gratia scheme.” The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim was rejected in 2004 based on the 2003 policy, which was “adopted by the respondent-UHBVNL on 09.06.2003,” despite being inapplicable to the earlier incident.
Referring to precedents, the Bench stated that “as far as compassionate appointment is concerned, the policy applicable at the time of death of the deceased employee would prevail.” It cited State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157, holding that “the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.” The Court also referred to Pramod v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 30 SCT 790, noting that “subsequent policies cannot be given retrospective effect and the employer is duty bound to honour the promissory estoppel.”
Justice Brar further stated that “both the Schemes of 1992 and 1995 were applicable at the time of the accident as well as the retirement of the father of the petitioner” and that the delay in deciding the claim was “for no fault of the petitioner.” The Court observed that “cases pertaining to compassionate appointment must be decided with a sense of urgency as the purpose behind granting such benefits is to aid the dependents of the deceased/incapacitated employee.”
Addressing delay and laches, the Bench relied on P.V. Narayana v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (2013) 8 SCT 508, observing that “no hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application and every case shall have to be decided on its own facts.” The judge recorded that “this Court finds it appropriate to condone the same in view of the trauma experienced by the petitioner and his family.”
The Court stated that “the constitutional philosophy prioritises human dignity above all else” and criticised administrative authorities for “persistent and unwarranted apathy and insensitivity” that “manifest as disregard for human exigencies and adopting a hyper-technical approach to deny substantive justice.”
“Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. The respondent-UHBVNL/competent authority is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner with an interest at the rate of 6% p.a., calculable from the date of filing of this petition i.e. 25.09.2017 till its actual realization, within a period of 02 months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. Grant of the said benefit to the petitioner would not unsettle settled matters qua any other affected party. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Kumar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC: 150322
Case Number: CWP-22548-2017 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
