Compassionate Appointment Not a Vested Right: Supreme Court on Delay in Civil Death Cases

Date of the Judgment: April 9, 2021
Citation: (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10514 of 2020)
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a delay in applying for compassionate appointment after a declaration of civil death impacts the eligibility for such appointment. The case involved a woman whose husband had been missing since 2002 and was declared civilly dead in 2012. Her subsequent application for compassionate appointment for her son was rejected, leading to the present appeal. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The respondent’s husband, an employee of Central Coalfields Limited, went missing on October 3, 2002. After his disappearance, the company issued a charge-sheet against him for desertion of duty. Following an inquiry, his services were terminated on September 21, 2004. Subsequently, the respondent filed a suit in 2009 seeking a declaration of civil death for her husband, which was decreed on July 13, 2012, effective from the date of filing the suit. On January 17, 2013, the respondent requested a compassionate appointment for her son, which was rejected on May 3, 2013, on the grounds that her husband had already been dismissed from service.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand, challenging the rejection of her son’s compassionate appointment. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the termination of the respondent’s husband and directing the appellant to consider the compassionate appointment. However, the appellant rejected the claim again, citing a policy decision against providing compassionate appointment to dependents of missing employees and the fact that the respondent was already employed. The High Court again set aside this rejection, stating that the decision of the Directors (Personnel) could not be considered a policy decision, and that the National Coal Wage Agreement did not bar compassionate appointments in cases of civil death or double employment. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the National Coal Wage Agreement concerning compassionate appointments. There is no specific clause in the agreement that explicitly disqualifies dependents of employees who have suffered civil death from receiving compassionate appointments. The court also considered the general principles governing compassionate appointments, which are intended to provide immediate relief to families facing financial crisis due to the death of a breadwinner.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellants argued that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and should be granted as per the relevant rules and schemes.
• They contended that the respondent’s husband went missing in 2002, the suit for civil death was filed in 2009, and the request for compassionate appointment was made in 2013, which was a significant delay.
• The appellants argued that the delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate succour to the family.
• It was also argued that the respondent was already employed, and that the decision taken by the Directors (Personnel) in 2013 should be considered a policy decision.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the National Coal Wage Agreement does not bar compassionate appointment for dependents of employees who have suffered civil death.
• She also argued that there is no provision preventing her son from getting compassionate appointment because she is working in the company.
• The respondent submitted that she diligently participated in the departmental inquiry against her husband and filed the civil suit immediately after seven years from 2002.
• The respondent also argued that the order of termination of service of her husband was set aside by the High Court.
• The respondent submitted that she has retired from service in 2018 and her son needs the employment to take care of his family.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue revolved around whether the delay in seeking compassionate appointment after the declaration of civil death of the employee and the fact that the respondent was already employed, were valid grounds for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 to emphasize that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee and cannot be claimed after a significant lapse of time. The Court observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing a financial crisis due to the loss of a breadwinner. The Court emphasized that the delay in applying for compassionate appointment, in this case, defeated the very purpose of such appointments. The fact that the respondent’s husband had been missing for over a decade and that the application for compassionate appointment was made much later weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. While the Court acknowledged that the National Coal Wage Agreement did not bar compassionate appointment in cases of civil death or where another family member was employed, it held that the delay was a significant factor that could not be overlooked.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that while the National Coal Wage Agreement did not explicitly bar compassionate appointment in cases of civil death or double employment, the delay in seeking such appointment was a critical factor. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time, but rather a means to provide immediate succour to a family facing a financial crisis due to the loss of a breadwinner. The Court held that since the respondent’s husband had been missing for over a decade and the application for compassionate appointment was made much later, the purpose of compassionate appointment would not be served.

The Court stated, “The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner.” It further added, “compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future.” The Court also noted, “As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent’s son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision to allow the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and should be claimed promptly after the death or disappearance of the breadwinner.
• Delay in seeking compassionate appointment can be a valid ground for rejection, as the purpose is to provide immediate relief.
• The fact that another family member is employed does not automatically disqualify a dependent from compassionate appointment, as per the National Coal Wage Agreement.
• The financial condition of the family is a key factor in determining eligibility for compassionate appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal. No specific directions were given.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be sought promptly to address immediate financial crises arising from the loss of a breadwinner. The Supreme Court clarified that while the National Coal Wage Agreement does not bar compassionate appointments in cases of civil death or double employment, a significant delay in seeking such appointment can be a valid ground for rejection. This ruling reinforces the principle that compassionate appointments are intended for immediate relief and not as a means of long-term employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and should be sought promptly to address immediate financial crises. The Court held that a delay of 10 years in applying for compassionate appointment was significant and defeated the purpose of such appointments, even though the National Coal Wage Agreement did not bar such appointments in cases of civil death or double employment. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely action in seeking compassionate appointments and reinforces the principle that such appointments are intended for immediate relief, not long-term employment.