Compassionate Appointment Right Is Not A Condition Of Service Of Employee Who Dies In Harness; Must Be Given On Strict Scrutiny Of Various Parameters: SC

The Supreme Court remarked that the right of compassionate appointment is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection.

The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred by the son of a deceased Constable in Haryana Police, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds as his father died while on duty in 1997.

The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless.”

The Bench added that the compassionate appointment is provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and this shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment.

AOR Priyanjali Singh represented the Appellant while DAG Shekhar Raj Sharma represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts -

When the Appellant’s father died while on duty as a Constable, he was then aged seven years. The widow of the other police Constable, who died along with the father of the Appellant, was granted compassionate appointment as a Constable upon her application. The mother of the Appellant, being illiterate, could not seek an appointment for herself and therefore applied for compassionate appointment for her son. A letter from the Director General of Police (DGP), Haryana was received by the Superintendent of Police in 1998, directing the name of the Appellant to be entered in the Minor’s Register No. and this indicated the intention of the authorities of reserving one post for grant of employment to the Appellant at a later stage being minor child of deceased employee as per the applicable policy.

Since the Appellant was a minor, his claim was kept pending. A further communication from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, was received by the mother of the Appellant that on attainment of the age of majority, the Appellant should approach the Office of the Welfare Inspector to get the case prepared. Hence, he approached the DGP but his claim was rejected. Resultantly, he approached the High Court but his Writ Petition was dismissed. An Intra Court Appeal preferred by the Appellant resulted in the dismissal of the same, leading to the filing of the Appeal before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again.”

The Court added that if such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness.

“The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification”, it further noted.

The Court also clarified that in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted.

“The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner”, it observed.

The Court said that the purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family. It thus concluded that it would be just and reasonable that one opportunity is granted to the widow of the deceased government employee, and the mother of the Appellant, to make a representation for exercising her option for the grant of lump sum ex-gratia compensation.

“The lumpsum compensation, if granted and released within the time stipulated above, shall not carry any interest. However, if a decision is not made and if found entitled, the amount not disbursed within the stipulated time, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum shall be payable from the date of representation till the date of actual payment”, it directed.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal.

Cause Title- Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 867)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Priyanjali Singh

Respondents: DAG Shekhar Raj Sharma, AOR Akshay Amritanshu, Advocates Nidhi Narwal, Drishti Saraf, Pragya Upadhyay, and Swati Mishra.

Click here to read/download the Judgment