LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dependent is entitled to compassionate appointment after a significant delay from the death of the employee.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anusree K.B.
Judgment Date: 30 September 2022
Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6958 of 2022
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Krishna Murari, J.
Can a claim for compassionate appointment be made decades after the death of the employee? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the limitations on compassionate appointments. The court held that such appointments are meant to provide immediate relief to families facing financial hardship after the death of the sole breadwinner, and not as a means of delayed recruitment. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The respondent’s father was employed as a loading helper with Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. He passed away while on duty on 19 April 1995. At the time of his death, his wife (the respondent’s mother) was employed with the Kerala State Health Services Department. The company’s policy at the time prioritized employment for the widow, son, or unmarried daughter of the deceased employee. Because the mother was employed, the family was not eligible for compassionate appointment at that time.
Fourteen years after her father’s death, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment. Her application was rejected on 12 February 2018 because her name was not in the list of dependents submitted by her father and because the policy prioritized the widow, son, or unmarried daughter. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 19 April 1995 | Respondent’s father, an employee of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., dies while on duty. |
| 1995 | Respondent’s mother was employed with the Kerala State Health Services Department, making the family ineligible for compassionate appointment under the prevailing policy. |
| 2013 | The respondent got married. |
| 2018 (approx.) | Respondent applies for compassionate appointment, 14 years after her father’s death. |
| 12 February 2018 | Respondent’s application for compassionate appointment is rejected. |
| 13 November 2019 | The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the directions to the appellants to reconsider the application of the respondent. |
| 12 December 2019 | Appellants rejected the application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after reconsideration. |
| 22 January 2021 | The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to reconsider the respondent’s claim. |
| 31 March 2022 | The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Single Judge. |
| 30 September 2022 | The Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to reconsider the respondent’s application. After reconsideration, the appellants again rejected the application on the grounds that the deceased employee was not the sole breadwinner and that there was a significant delay of 24 years since the death of the employee. The learned Single Judge then allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to reconsider the respondent’s claim. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to the principles governing compassionate appointments, emphasizing that such appointments are an exception to the general rule of public employment. The Court highlighted that compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate relief to families in financial distress following the death of the breadwinner. The Court also referred to Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandates equal opportunity for all in public employment.
The Court referred to the following principles governing compassionate appointment:
- ✓ Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule.
- ✓ No aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment.
- ✓ Appointments to public posts must adhere to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
- ✓ Compassionate appointments must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy.
- ✓ The norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The appellants argued that the application for compassionate appointment was made 14 years after the death of the employee, and reconsidering it after 24 years would defeat the purpose of such appointments.
- ✓ The purpose of compassionate appointment is to meet the immediate financial difficulties arising from the sudden death of the sole breadwinner.
- ✓ The appellants relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704 and N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- ✓ The respondent argued that she was a minor when her father died and applied for the appointment after attaining majority.
- ✓ The initial rejection of her application was not based on delay but on the ground that her name was not in the list of dependents, which was factually incorrect.
- ✓ She was called for an interview in 2018, indicating that her claim was not initially rejected due to delay.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Delay in Application |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: No Delay |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the respondent is entitled to compassionate appointment on the death of her father, who died in 1995, considering the delay of 24 years?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the respondent is entitled to compassionate appointment after 24 years? | No | Compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief, not a delayed benefit. Allowing such a long delay would defeat the purpose of the scheme. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704 | Supreme Court of India | Summarized the principles governing compassionate appointment. |
| N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to the principles governing compassionate appointment. |
| State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 | Supreme Court of India | Considered the object and purpose of compassionate appointment. |
| Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the nature of compassionate appointment. |
| Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the principles of compassionate appointment. |
| Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a means to overcome financial crisis. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Delay of 14/24 years in applying for compassionate appointment. | Accepted. The Court held that the delay defeated the purpose of compassionate appointment. |
| Respondent | Respondent was a minor at the time of death and applied after attaining majority. | Rejected. The Court held that the delay of 14/24 years was too long, regardless of the respondent’s age at the time of death. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ The Court relied on Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704 to reiterate the principles governing compassionate appointments, emphasizing that it is an exception to the general rule and not a right.
- ✓ The Court followed N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, which also discussed the principles of compassionate appointment.
- ✓ The Court used State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 to understand the object and purpose of compassionate appointment, highlighting that it is meant to provide immediate relief to families in distress.
- ✓ The Court referred to Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 and Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 to clarify that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a means to help families overcome sudden financial crises.
- ✓ The Court also cited Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, reinforcing that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a means to enable the family to get over a sudden financial crisis.
The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment after a delay of 24 years from the death of her father. The Court emphasized that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial distress due to the death of the breadwinner. The Court stated that if such appointments are made after a long delay, it would defeat the very purpose of the scheme.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment, intended to provide immediate relief to families facing financial hardship due to the sudden death of the breadwinner. The Court emphasized that the scheme is not a means of delayed recruitment or a source of inheritance. The delay of 24 years was a significant factor, as the Court believed that such a long period would negate the purpose of the scheme.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on immediate relief | 40% |
| Purpose of compassionate appointment | 30% |
| Significance of the delay | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the factual circumstances of the case.
The Court considered the purpose of compassionate appointment and the significant delay in the application, ultimately deciding against the respondent’s claim.
The Court quoted the following from Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]:
“The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased.”
The Court further quoted the following from Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384]:
“The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme.”
The Court also observed:
“After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Compassionate appointment is not a right but an exception to the general rule of public employment.
- ✓ The primary purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee.
- ✓ Significant delays in applying for compassionate appointment can be a valid reason for rejection.
- ✓ The norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court, allowing the appeal.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after an unreasonable delay as it defeats the purpose of providing immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on compassionate appointments, emphasizing that it is not a source of recruitment but a means to overcome a sudden financial crisis. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. Anusree K.B. clarifies that compassionate appointments are intended for immediate relief and cannot be claimed after a significant delay. The Court emphasized that such appointments are an exception to the general rule of public employment and are not a source of delayed recruitment. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the principles and purpose of compassionate appointment schemes.