Supreme Court Awards Compensation for BSNL’s Delay in Compassionate Appointment: BSNL vs. Vidya Prasad (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2021

Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 6019 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.16404 of 2018)

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can bureaucratic delays deny a family their right to compassionate appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a government employee’s son was denied a job due to administrative delays. The court examined whether the delay in processing the application for compassionate appointment justified awarding compensation to the affected family.

This case revolves around the denial of compassionate appointment to the respondent, whose father passed away while working for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The Supreme Court considered whether the delay in processing the application, which was initially eligible under the prevailing scheme, warranted compensation. The bench comprised Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The respondent’s father, a Telephone Mechanic, passed away while in service on February 7, 2003. Following his death, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment on October 15, 2004. He completed all necessary formalities by July 3, 2005. At the time of his father’s death and the application, the 1998 Scheme for compassionate appointment was in effect, under which the respondent was eligible.

However, BSNL introduced a new “weightage point system” scheme on June 27, 2007, superseding the 1998 scheme. The respondent’s application was then considered under this new scheme and rejected on September 15, 2007. The rejection was based on the new scheme’s criteria, which deemed the family not indigent enough for appointment. The reason cited was that the deceased’s wife was receiving a pension of Rs. 3170 per month and the family lived in their own house.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially challenged the rejection of his application before the Tribunal. The matter then went to the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court noted that due to the long pendency of the case, the respondent had crossed the age of 50, making it impractical to grant him employment. However, considering the delay and the respondent’s initial eligibility, the High Court awarded him a lump sum compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the 1998 Scheme for compassionate appointment, which was in effect when the respondent’s father passed away and when the respondent initially applied. The new scheme, introduced on June 27, 2007, implemented a “weightage point system” which superseded the 1998 Scheme. The new scheme considered various factors to determine eligibility for compassionate appointment.

The Supreme Court noted that the respondent was eligible for compassionate appointment under the 1998 scheme. However, his application was not processed until the new scheme came into effect, leading to its rejection.

Arguments

The respondent argued that he was eligible for compassionate appointment under the 1998 Scheme, which was in effect at the time of his father’s death and when he submitted his application. He contended that the delay in processing his application was attributable to the appellants, and therefore, he should not be penalized by the subsequent introduction of the new scheme.

The appellants argued that the new scheme of 2007 was applicable at the time of consideration, and under that scheme, the respondent was not eligible for compassionate appointment. They maintained that the rejection was in accordance with the rules and guidelines in place at the time of consideration.

The Supreme Court noted that the delay in considering the application was attributable to the appellants. The Court highlighted that the respondent was eligible under the 1998 scheme and that his application should have been processed under that scheme.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the delay in processing the application for compassionate appointment, which was initially eligible under the 1998 scheme, justified the award of compensation to the respondent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

Judgment

The Court held that the delay in processing the respondent’s application was attributable to the appellants. The respondent was eligible under the 1998 Scheme, and the introduction of the new scheme should not have been a ground for rejecting his application.

The Court modified the High Court’s judgment, reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. The Court stated that while employment was not feasible due to the respondent’s age, compensation was necessary to address the injustice caused by the delay.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the delay in processing the application was solely attributable to the appellants. The Court emphasized that the respondent was eligible under the prevailing scheme at the time of his application, and the subsequent introduction of a new scheme should not have disadvantaged him. The Court also considered the fact that the respondent had crossed the age of 50, making it impractical to offer employment.

The Court observed that the delay in processing the application was a significant factor in its decision. The Court stated, “It is always said that delay denies justice and the present respondent became victim of the total inaction on the part of the appellants and its officials in not putting heed to the application which was submitted by the family of the deceased employee, who died while in service.”

The Court also noted that while employment was not feasible due to the respondent’s age, compensation was necessary to address the injustice caused by the delay. The Court stated, “At the same time, it cannot be ignored that by the time the matter travelled to the Division Bench of the High Court, the respondent crossed the age of 50 years and certainly it was not possible to consider him for employment at such a belated stage, but the respondent at least could not have been left in lurch.”

The Court emphasized the need for timely action in such cases, stating, “The indigent family who has lost their bread winner in seeking compassionate appointment to which one of the dependent was otherwise entitled to under the law because of irresponsible attitude and red tapism which is prevalent in the office of the appellants.”

Key Takeaways

✓ Government organizations must process compassionate appointment applications in a timely manner.

✓ Applicants eligible under the prevailing scheme at the time of application should not be disadvantaged by subsequent changes in policy.

✓ Compensation can be awarded in cases where administrative delays have deprived eligible applicants of their right to compassionate appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent within four weeks from the date of the judgment. Failure to do so would result in an interest of 9% per annum until the actual payment is made.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that delay in processing an application for compassionate appointment, which was initially eligible under the prevailing scheme, warrants compensation. This case reinforces the principle that administrative delays cannot deprive eligible applicants of their rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of timely processing of compassionate appointment applications. The Court held that the delay caused by the appellants deprived the respondent of his right to fair consideration under the 1998 scheme. While employment was not feasible due to the respondent’s age, the Court modified the High Court’s order, awarding compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to address the injustice caused by the administrative inaction.