Supreme Court Clarifies Compassionate Appointment Criteria: Union of India vs. Amrita Sinha (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 731

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and A S Bopanna, J.

Can a family’s current pension be the main factor in denying compassionate appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the denial of compassionate appointment to the wife of a deceased Indian Air Force Sergeant. The core issue was whether the authorities were correct in considering the family pension received by the applicant at the time of consideration, or whether they should have considered the reduced pension that would be payable in the future. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, overturned the High Court’s decision, clarifying the principles governing compassionate appointments.

Case Background

The respondent’s husband, a Sergeant in the Indian Air Force, passed away from cancer on January 6, 2008. At the time of his death, he was survived by his wife and two minor children. Following his death, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment. Her initial application was rejected on February 17, 2011. A subsequent application was also rejected on June 16, 2015, because she did not secure enough merit points under the applicable scheme. The respondent was receiving a family pension of Rs 8,265 per month, which was set to reduce to Rs 4,959 per month after ten years, from January 7, 2018. The authorities considered the higher pension amount while evaluating her application for compassionate appointment.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had directed the appellants to reconsider the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment, finding that the denial was not justifiable. The Tribunal noted that the family pension would reduce after ten years and that the family might have incurred debts due to the deceased’s illness. The High Court of Judicature at Madras affirmed the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the authorities had erred in considering the family pension as monthly income, as it was an ad hoc income, instead of considering the regular pension which would be earned with effect from January 7, 2018. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the “Scheme of Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government” issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) on 9 October 1998. Additionally, the Ministry of Defence issued two OMs, one on January 22, 2010, titled “Scheme of Compassionate Appointment Relative Merit, Point and Revised Procedure for Selection” and another on May 14, 2010. These schemes provide the framework for evaluating claims for compassionate appointment, including the assignment of merit points under various heads, one of which is family pension.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The appellants argued that the respondent’s case was considered strictly within the parameters of the Office Memorandums (OMs) and merit points were assigned accordingly.
• They contended that the authorities were justified in taking into account the family pension being earned at the time of consideration of the application.
• The appellants submitted that the reduction in pension after ten years was not a valid ground to reassign merit points.
• The Union of India stated that the respondent’s claim had already been rejected on February 17, 2011, and even after a fresh claim, she was found ineligible as per the policy.

Arguments by the Respondent (Amrita Sinha):

• The respondent argued that the merit points assigned to her were incorrectly computed because the family pension of Rs 8,265 per month was to be reduced to Rs 4,959 per month from January 7, 2018.
• She contended that the authorities should have considered the reduced pension amount while evaluating her claim.
• The respondent relied on the Tribunal’s judgment and urged the Court not to interfere on humanitarian grounds, considering her financial condition.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the High Court and the Tribunal were correct in interfering with the evaluation done by the authorities regarding compassionate appointment. Specifically, the court addressed:

• Whether the authorities were correct in considering the family pension at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment.
• Whether the reduction in pension after ten years should have been a factor in reassigning merit points.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The court primarily relied on the existing policy documents and the principles governing compassionate appointments.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Scheme of Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government: Issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) on 9 October 1998. This scheme provides the general framework for compassionate appointments.
• Scheme of Compassionate Appointment Relative Merit, Point and Revised Procedure for Selection: Issued by the Ministry of Defence on 22 January 2010 and 14 May 2010. These OMs detail the procedure for evaluating claims for compassionate appointment, including the assignment of merit points.

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government and the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment Relative Merit, Point and Revised Procedure for Selection to determine the correct procedure for evaluating the claim.
• The Court held that the authorities correctly followed the guidelines in taking into account the family pension as of the date of consideration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a right but a means to help a family overcome an immediate financial crisis following the death of its wage earner. The Court noted that the authorities must evaluate the financial position of the family at the time of consideration of the application. The court found that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in their interpretation of how the family pension should be considered. The Court also stressed that the authorities must follow the guidelines and policies in place and that the current pension payment should be the basis for evaluation, not potential future changes.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the policy documents and the purpose of compassionate appointment. It rejected the Tribunal’s and High Court’s views that the family pension was not correctly considered. The Court emphasized the importance of following the guidelines and policies in place, which required the current pension payment to be the basis for evaluation. The Court held that the authorities were correct in their assessment and that there was no reason to interfere.

The Court stated, “Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. It is provided in order to enable a family to tide over a financial crisis caused by the death of its wage-earner while in service.” The Court further noted, “If the scheme requires that the family pension must be taken into account in evaluating the merits an application, it has to be followed.” Additionally, the Court stated, “Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but is to enable the family to tide over an immediate crisis which may result from the death of the employee.”

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a means to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial hardship due to the death of an employee.
• The financial position of the family should be evaluated based on the current circumstances at the time of consideration of the application.
• Authorities are required to follow the existing guidelines and policies while evaluating claims for compassionate appointment.
• The family pension being received at the time of consideration should be the basis for evaluation, and future changes in pension are not relevant.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The original application filed by the respondent was dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the family pension being received at the time of consideration of an application for compassionate appointment should be the basis for evaluation, and future changes in pension are not relevant. This clarifies the application of the policy and ensures uniformity in the evaluation process. The Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is intended to provide immediate relief to a family in financial distress.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Amrita Sinha clarifies the criteria for compassionate appointment, emphasizing that the family’s current financial situation, particularly the family pension being received at the time of consideration, is the primary factor for evaluation. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, reinforcing the principle that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a means to provide immediate relief to families in financial distress due to the death of an employee. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to existing policies and guidelines in evaluating such claims.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Compassionate Appointment
• Family Pension
• Central Government Employees
• Ministry of Defence
• Scheme of Compassionate Appointment
• Financial Assessment

Parent Category: Scheme of Compassionate Appointment

Child Categories:

• Scheme of Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government
• Scheme of Compassionate Appointment Relative Merit, Point and Revised Procedure for Selection

FAQ

Q: What is compassionate appointment?

A: Compassionate appointment is a scheme that provides employment to a family member of a deceased government employee to help the family overcome immediate financial hardship.

Q: What was the main issue in the case of Union of India vs. Amrita Sinha?

A: The main issue was whether the authorities were correct in considering the family pension being received at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment, or whether they should have considered the reduced pension that would be payable in the future.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court held that the authorities were correct in considering the family pension being received at the time of consideration. The Court stated that compassionate appointment is not a right but a means to provide immediate relief, and the current financial situation should be the basis for evaluation.

Q: Is compassionate appointment a right?

A: No, compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. It is a scheme to help families tide over an immediate financial crisis caused by the death of an employee.

Q: What should be considered while evaluating a claim for compassionate appointment?

A: The current financial situation of the family, particularly the family pension being received at the time of consideration, should be the basis for evaluation. The authorities must follow the existing guidelines and policies.