LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dependent of a deceased government employee is entitled to compassionate appointment after a significant delay in attaining majority, and whether the state can be directed to grant ex-gratia compensation if the compassionate appointment is denied.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Tinku vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: November 13, 2024
Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 867
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., Augustine George Masih, J.
Can a minor child of a deceased government employee claim compassionate appointment many years after the death of the employee? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the son of a deceased Haryana police constable. The court examined the validity of a delayed claim for compassionate appointment and also considered the provision of ex-gratia compensation. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih, with Justice Augustine George Masih authoring the opinion.
Case Background
In 1997, Jai Prakash, a constable in the Haryana Police, died while on duty. His son, Tinku, the Appellant, was seven years old at the time. The prevailing policy at the time, dated 08.05.1995, allowed for ex-gratia appointments to Class III and IV posts. Tinku’s mother, being illiterate, applied for compassionate appointment for her son. The authorities acknowledged this by entering Tinku’s name in the Minor’s Register in 1998, indicating their intention to reserve a post for him upon reaching adulthood.
In 2003, Tinku’s mother was informed that upon attaining majority, Tinku should approach the Welfare Inspector to process his case. Tinku, having attained majority on 10.10.2008, formally applied for compassionate appointment. However, his claim was rejected in 2009 by the Director General of Police (DGP), Haryana, on the grounds that it was time-barred. The rejection was based on a government instruction dated 22.03.1999, which stated that a minor dependent of a deceased employee must attain majority within three years of the employee’s death to be eligible for compassionate appointment. The rejection also cited the “Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees” Rules, 2006, which did not provide for ex-gratia appointments.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 22.11.1997 | Jai Prakash, a Haryana Police constable, dies on duty. |
| 08.05.1995 | Policy in force for ex-gratia appointment confined to Class III and IV posts. |
| 15.04.1998 | DGP directs entry of Tinku’s name in the Minor’s Register. |
| 20.04.1998 | Superintendent of Police receives the letter from DGP. |
| 30.12.2003 | Tinku’s mother is informed to approach the Welfare Inspector upon Tinku reaching majority. |
| 10.10.2008 | Tinku attains majority. |
| 30.10.2008 | Tinku applies for compassionate appointment. |
| 28.04.2009 | DGP rejects Tinku’s claim as time-barred. |
| 22.03.1999 | Government instructions issued with a three-year limit for attaining majority for compassionate appointment. |
| 01.08.2006 | “Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees” Rules, 2006 came into force. |
| 2009 | Tinku files a writ petition in the High Court. |
| 12.01.2021 | High Court dismisses Tinku’s writ petition. |
| 22.03.2022 | Intra-court appeal is dismissed. |
| 16.03.2011 | Government of Haryana grants a mercy chance for ex-gratia compensation. |
| 13.11.2024 | Supreme Court disposes of the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
Tinku filed a writ petition before the High Court in 2009, arguing promissory estoppel based on earlier communications from the authorities. The High Court dismissed the petition on 12.01.2021, stating that the communications were merely acknowledgments and that the delay of 11 years from his father’s death to his attaining majority was excessive, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [1994 (4) SCC 138]. An intra-court appeal was also dismissed on 22.03.2022, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves the following key legal provisions:
- The policy dated 08.05.1995, which provided for ex-gratia appointment to Class III and IV posts.
- Government instructions dated 22.03.1999, which stipulated that a minor dependent must attain majority within three years of the government employee’s death to be eligible for compassionate appointment.
- The “Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees” Rules, 2006, which were in force at the time of consideration of the Appellant’s claim.
- Rule 8 of the 2006 Rules which mentions that the families would have the option to opt for the lump sum ex-gratia grant provided in the Rules of 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly financial assistance provided under the 2006 Rules.
These provisions collectively govern the eligibility criteria and procedures for compassionate appointments in Haryana. The 1999 instructions introduced a time limit for attaining majority, which was a key point of contention in this case. The 2006 Rules, while in force when the claim was considered, did not provide for ex-gratia appointments but did allow for ex-gratia compensation.
Arguments
The Appellant argued that there was a violation of the right to equality because, in similar cases, compassionate appointments were granted even when the dependent attained majority after a considerable delay. The Appellant contended that since he was similarly placed, he should be granted the same benefit.
The State of Haryana argued that the compassionate appointment could not be granted as the claim was time-barred, given that the Appellant attained majority 11 years after his father’s death. This was in violation of the 1999 instructions, which mandated that the dependent attain majority within three years of the employee’s death. The State also contended that the 2006 Rules did not provide for ex-gratia appointments.
| Submissions | Appellant’s Arguments | State of Haryana’s Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Equality | ✓ Similar cases were granted compassionate appointments despite delays. ✓ The Appellant is similarly placed and should receive the same benefit. |
✓ Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. ✓ The State cannot be compelled to perpetuate illegalities. |
| Time-Barred Claim | ✓ The Appellant’s name was entered in the Minor’s Register, indicating an intention to grant appointment later. ✓ The delay was due to his minority. |
✓ The claim is time-barred as per the 1999 instructions, which require attaining majority within three years of the employee’s death. ✓ The Appellant attained majority 11 years after his father’s death. |
| Ex-Gratia Appointment | ✓ The Appellant’s claim was pending for a long time and the rejection was primarily on the grounds that the claim was time-barred. ✓ The 2006 Rules did not provide for ex-gratia appointment. |
✓ The 2006 Rules do not provide for ex-gratia appointment. |
| Ex-Gratia Compensation | ✓ The claim for ex-gratia compensation subsists. ✓ The mother of the Appellant could have sought the benefit of such compensation had she been informed in time about the non-acceptance of her request for employment of her minor son. ✓ The Government of Haryana had taken a conscious decision on 16.03.2011 granting a mercy chance as one-time measure to exercise option for ex-gratia compensation. |
✓ The claim was considered under 2006 Rules which provide for ex-gratia compensation. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the Appellant was entitled to compassionate appointment, given the delay in attaining majority and the 1999 instructions.
- Whether the Appellant was entitled to ex-gratia compensation, given that his claim for compassionate appointment was pending for a long time.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Compassionate Appointment | Denied | The Appellant attained majority 11 years after his father’s death, violating the 1999 instructions which mandated that the dependent attain majority within three years of the employee’s death. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is subject to the rules in force. |
| Entitlement to Ex-Gratia Compensation | Allowed | The Appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment was pending for a long time, and the mother of the Appellant was not informed about the option to claim ex-gratia compensation. The government had provided a one-time measure for claiming ex-gratia in old cases. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [1994 (4) SCC 138] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | The High Court relied on this case to emphasize the delay in the Appellant’s claim. |
| Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India [(2009) 15 SCC 705] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | To emphasize that equality is based on law and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. |
| Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | To emphasize that the court will not compel the authority to repeat an illegality. |
| R Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO [(2022) SCC Online SC 151] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | To emphasize that equality is based on law and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. |
| Basawaraj & Anr v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | To emphasize that equality is based on law and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. |
| Government instructions dated 22.03.1999 | Haryana Government | Applied | The instructions stipulated a three-year limit for attaining majority for compassionate appointment. |
| “Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees” Rules, 2006 | Haryana Government | Applied | The rules were in force when the claim was considered and did not provide for ex-gratia appointments but allowed for ex-gratia compensation. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment based on equality. | Rejected. The Court held that equality cannot be claimed based on illegalities committed in other cases. |
| Appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment despite the delay. | Rejected. The Court upheld the 1999 instructions, stating that the claim was time-barred. |
| Appellant’s claim for ex-gratia compensation. | Accepted. The Court directed the State to consider the claim for ex-gratia compensation. |
| State’s argument that the 2006 Rules do not provide for ex-gratia appointment. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the 2006 Rules did not provide for ex-gratia appointment. |
| State’s argument that the claim was time-barred. | Accepted for compassionate appointment but rejected for ex-gratia compensation. The Court held that the State should have informed the Appellant’s mother about the option to claim ex-gratia compensation. |
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [1994 (4) SCC 138]* was used by the High Court to emphasize the delay in the Appellant’s claim. The Supreme Court did not overrule this case.
Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India [(2009) 15 SCC 705]*, Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745]*, R Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO [(2022) SCC Online SC 151]* and Basawaraj & Anr v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81]* were used to emphasize that equality is based on law and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of legal principles and factual considerations. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must adhere to the rules and policies in force. The delay in the Appellant attaining majority was a critical factor in denying the compassionate appointment. However, the Court also recognized the State’s inaction in informing the Appellant’s mother about the option for ex-gratia compensation, leading to the grant of relief.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Legal Principles | 45% |
| Factual Considerations (Delay) | 30% |
| State’s Inaction | 25% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 35% |
| Law | 65% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
The Court considered the argument that the Appellant’s name was entered in the Minor’s Register, but held that it did not create a vested right to compassionate appointment. The Court also considered the argument that similar cases were granted compassionate appointments, but held that such illegalities cannot be the basis for claiming equality.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“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.”
“Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis.”
“The claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The decisions of the High Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with.”
Key Takeaways
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is subject to the rules and policies in force.
- Claims for compassionate appointment must be made within the stipulated time frame, and delays can result in rejection.
- The State has a responsibility to inform dependents of deceased employees about their entitlements, including ex-gratia compensation.
- Even if compassionate appointment is denied, ex-gratia compensation may still be available.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the State of Haryana to grant one opportunity to the widow of the deceased government employee, Jai Prakash, to make a representation for exercising her option for the grant of lump sum ex-gratia compensation. The Court further directed that the decision on the representation should be taken within six weeks of its receipt. If the compensation is granted and released within the stipulated time, it shall not carry any interest. However, if the amount is 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.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is subject to the rules and policies in force. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to time limits for claiming compassionate appointments and highlights the State’s responsibility to inform dependents about their entitlements, including ex-gratia compensation. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for compassionate appointment, upholding the High Court’s decision. However, the Court directed the State of Haryana to consider the Appellant’s mother’s claim for ex-gratia compensation, acknowledging the State’s failure to inform her about her entitlement. This judgment underscores the importance of timely claims for compassionate appointment and the State’s duty to ensure that dependents of deceased employees are aware of their rights.