Date of the Judgment: May 19, 2020
Citation: Civil Appeal No 2426 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 3502 of 2019)
Judges: Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice Ajay Rastogi
Can an application for compassionate appointment be rejected when the employee’s retirement on medical grounds was approved after their death? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the State of Himachal Pradesh. The court clarified the applicability of the compassionate appointment policy, emphasizing that the date of death is the determining factor, not the post-death approval of retirement. This judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice Ajay Rastogi, provides clarity on the rights of dependents of deceased government employees.
Case Background
The appellant’s father was an employee of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He applied for retirement on medical grounds. While his application was pending, he passed away on June 16, 2004. The application for retirement was approved on June 17, 2004, a day after the employee’s death, with effect from April 8, 2003. The appellant then applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the authorities. The rejection was based on a clause in the compassionate appointment policy dated January 18, 1990, that specified an age limit for employees retiring on medical grounds, which the deceased employee had exceeded.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 8, 2003 | Retirement on medical grounds was approved with effect from this date (retroactive). |
| June 16, 2004 | Father of the appellant passed away while in service. |
| June 17, 2004 | Retirement application of the deceased employee was approved. |
| January 18, 1990 | Compassionate appointment policy was issued. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. The High Court upheld the decision of the authorities rejecting the compassionate appointment application. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the compassionate appointment policy dated 18 January 1990, specifically clause 2(a) which deals with a government servant, who dies while in service leaving the family in immediate need of assistance, and the clause regarding retirement on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
- The policy dated 18 January 1990, states that in the case of a government servant (falling in Class III and IV), who retires on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, there is an age limit of 53 years and 55 years respectively which the employee had crossed.
- Clause 2(a) of the policy deals with a government servant, who dies while in service leaving the family in immediate need of assistance.
Arguments
The appellant contended that the clause regarding retirement on medical grounds should not apply in this case, as the employee died while in service, and the approval for retirement came after his death. The appellant argued that the case should be considered under clause 2(a) of the policy, which deals with death while in service. The appellant submitted that the application for retirement was approved after the death of the employee and therefore, the cessation of service would not be retrospective.
The respondent argued that the employee’s retirement was approved, albeit after his death, and therefore, the age limit for retirement on medical grounds should apply.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: The compassionate appointment should be considered under clause 2(a) of the policy. |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: The age limit for retirement on medical grounds should apply. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame the issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:
- Whether the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected based on the policy clause regarding retirement on medical grounds, when the employee died while in service and the retirement approval was post-death?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected based on the policy clause regarding retirement on medical grounds, when the employee died while in service and the retirement approval was post-death? | The Supreme Court held that the rejection was incorrect. The Court emphasized that the employee died while in service and the post-death approval of retirement on medical grounds was not valid. Therefore, the case should be considered under clause 2(a) of the policy, which deals with death while in service. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Compassionate appointment policy dated 18 January 1990 | The Court interpreted and applied the policy, specifically clauses related to death in service and retirement on medical grounds. |
| Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 | The Court considered the rule in the context of the compassionate appointment policy, noting that the retirement was approved after the death of the employee. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the case should be considered under clause 2(a) of the policy. | The Court accepted this submission, stating that the employee died while in service and the post-death approval of retirement is invalid. |
| Respondent’s submission that the age limit for retirement on medical grounds should apply. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the retirement approval was after the death of the employee and therefore, the clause is not applicable. |
The Supreme Court held that the rejection of the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment was incorrect. The Court emphasized that the employee died while in service and the post-death approval of retirement on medical grounds was not valid. Therefore, the case should be considered under clause 2(a) of the policy, which deals with death while in service.
The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the appellant’s application in light of the observations made in the judgment. The Court also specified that if compassionate appointment is granted, the appellant would not be entitled to arrears of salary, and would receive salary only from the date of joining service.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual sequence of events and the proper interpretation of the compassionate appointment policy. The court emphasized that the employee’s death occurred before the approval of his retirement, making the retirement clause inapplicable. The court prioritized the immediate need for assistance to the family upon the death of the employee while in service.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual Sequence of Events | 60% |
| Interpretation of the Policy | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the date of death is the crucial factor. The Court stated, “On the date of death, the application for retirement on medical grounds had not been approved. The approval, which was issued after the death of the employee, would therefore not have any valid basis.” The Court also noted, “There could not have been any retrospective cessation of service by the acceptance of the application of retirement on medical grounds after the date of death of the employee.” The Court further clarified that, “The case would be covered by clause 2(a) of the policy which deals with a government servant, who dies while in service leaving the family in immediate need of assistance.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The date of death of a government employee is the determining factor for compassionate appointment, not the post-death approval of retirement.
- ✓ If an employee dies while in service, their case should be considered under the clause of the compassionate appointment policy that deals with death in service.
- ✓ Retrospective approval of retirement after the death of an employee does not negate the right to compassionate appointment under the death-in-service clause.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the authorities to reconsider the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment in light of the observations made in the judgment. The Court also specified that if compassionate appointment is granted, the appellant would not be entitled to arrears of salary, and would receive salary only from the date of joining service.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies that the date of death of an employee is the crucial factor in determining the applicability of compassionate appointment policies. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the post-death approval of retirement on medical grounds does not negate the right to compassionate appointment under the death-in-service clause of the policy. This clarifies the position of law in cases where retirement on medical grounds is approved after the death of the employee.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Munish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh clarifies that the date of death is the determining factor for compassionate appointment, not the post-death approval of retirement on medical grounds. This decision ensures that the families of government employees who die while in service receive the necessary support and assistance as per the compassionate appointment policy. The court has directed the authorities to reconsider the appellant’s application, reinforcing the rights of dependents of deceased employees.
Category
- Compassionate Appointment
- Death in Service
- Retirement on Medical Grounds
- Compassionate Appointment Policy
- Service Law
- Compassionate Appointment
- CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
- Rule 38, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
FAQ
Q: What happens if a government employee dies while their retirement application is pending?
A: If a government employee dies while their retirement application is pending, the case should be considered under the death-in-service clause of the compassionate appointment policy, not the retirement clause.
Q: Can a compassionate appointment be denied if the employee’s retirement was approved after their death?
A: No, a compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely because the retirement was approved after the employee’s death. The date of death is the determining factor.
Q: Will the family of a deceased employee receive arrears of salary if a compassionate appointment is granted?
A: No, if a compassionate appointment is granted, the appointee will receive salary only from the date of joining service, not arrears of salary.