LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person is entitled to compassionate appointment under a policy that was in force at the time of death of the employee or the new policy which came into force after the death of the employee.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. Nirval Singh
Judgment Date: May 6, 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: May 6, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 446
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Can a person claim a compassionate appointment based on a policy that was in effect when their family member passed away, or does the most recent policy apply? The Supreme Court of India addressed this very question in a recent case involving the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and a claimant seeking employment on compassionate grounds. This case clarifies the legal position on which policy governs such appointments. The bench comprised of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The respondent’s father, an employee of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, passed away on May 17, 2004. Following his death, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment. At the time of the application, the policy dated November 21, 2002, was in effect. However, the corporation did not process his application, stating that a new policy was under consideration. The new policy came into effect on November 23, 2004. The corporation offered the respondent a solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs or a temporary post under the new policy, both of which the respondent declined.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 17, 2004 | Respondent’s father, an employee of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, passed away. |
| November 21, 2002 | The policy for compassionate appointment was in force. |
| November 23, 2004 | New policy for compassionate appointment came into effect. |
| September 19, 2004 | Solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs was offered to the respondent. |
| 2011 | Respondent filed a Writ Petition. |
| March 12, 2012 | Writ Petition was disposed of with directions to consider the application. |
| After March 12, 2012 | The petitioner rejected the request. |
| After the rejection of request | Respondent filed another Writ Petition which was disposed of by relegating the respondent to civil suit. |
| Civil Suit | The civil suit was initially dismissed but the appeal was allowed and the second appeal was dismissed. |
| May 6, 2019 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondent initially approached the High Court in 2011 by filing a Writ Petition, which was disposed of on March 12, 2012, directing the corporation to consider his application as per policy. The corporation rejected his request, leading to a second Writ Petition. The High Court directed the respondent to file a civil suit. The civil suit was initially dismissed, but the appeal was allowed, and the second appeal was dismissed. The corporation then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court emphasized that there is no inherent right to compassionate appointment. Such appointments are an exception to the general rule of merit-based recruitment and are intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee. The Court referred to the judgment in State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661, which held that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a concession to help families overcome financial crises. The Court also noted that if a scheme for compassionate appointment is abolished, any pending application under that scheme ceases to exist unless specifically saved.
The relevant clause of the new policy states:
“The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of instructions. The cases, where compassionate employment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite relief, in lieu compassionate employment, shall be granted as per above policy instructions.”
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellant (Punjab State Power Corporation Limited):
- The appellant argued that there is no inherent right to compassionate appointment and it is a concession.
- The appellant contended that the compassionate appointment must be in accordance with the existing policy.
- The appellant submitted that the objective of compassionate appointment is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant stage of time.
- The appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 to argue that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and that the dependants of employees who die in harness do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession.
- The appellant submitted that the new policy which replaced the earlier policy specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme.
- The appellant submitted that the respondent had approached the court after a delay of 7 years.
- The appellant stated that the earlier policy was abolished and the new policy came into force.
- The appellant submitted that the respondent was offered the benefits under the new policy, which he declined.
- The appellant contended that the offer of solatium was the only remedy available to the respondent.
Arguments by the Respondent (Nirval Singh):
- The respondent argued that he was entitled to compassionate appointment under the policy that was in force at the time of his father’s death.
- The respondent argued that his application should be considered under the old policy.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Compassionate Appointment |
✓ No inherent right to compassionate appointment. ✓ It is a concession, not a right. ✓ Must be as per existing policy. ✓ Objective is to help the family at the relevant time. ✓ New policy applies to pending applications. |
✓ Entitled under the policy at the time of death. ✓ Application should be considered under old policy. |
| Delay in Approaching Court | ✓ Approached after 7 years, defeating the purpose. | – |
| Policy Application |
✓ Earlier policy abolished; new policy in force. ✓ Benefits offered under new policy were declined. ✓ Solatium is the only remedy. |
– |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment under the policy that was in force at the time of his father’s death or under the new policy which came into force later.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment under the old policy or the new policy? | The respondent was not entitled to appointment under the old policy. | The Court held that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, and the new policy applied to pending applications. The respondent was offered benefits under the new policy, which he declined. |
Authorities
Cases:
-
State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 – Supreme Court of India
Ratio: Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a concession to help families overcome financial crises. If a scheme for compassionate appointment is abolished, any pending application under that scheme ceases to exist unless specifically saved.
Authorities Table
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower courts. The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment under the old policy as there is no inherent right to compassionate appointment. The Court also noted that the new policy was applicable to the respondent’s case and the respondent had been offered benefits under the new policy, which he declined.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that there is no inherent right to compassionate appointment. | Accepted. The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right. |
| Appellant’s submission that the new policy applies. | Accepted. The Court held that the new policy was applicable and the respondent was offered benefits under it. |
| Appellant’s submission that there was a delay in approaching the court. | Accepted. The Court noted the delay of 7 years, which defeated the purpose of immediate relief. |
| Respondent’s submission that he was entitled to appointment under the old policy. | Rejected. The Court held that the new policy was applicable and the old policy was abolished. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court followed the ratio of State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661* which held that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment, but a concession and that if a scheme for compassionate appointment is abolished, any pending application under that scheme ceases to exist unless specifically saved.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, and that it is subject to the existing policy. The Court also considered the delay in approaching the court and the fact that the new policy was in force and the respondent was offered benefits under it.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Policy Applicability | 40% |
| No Inherent Right | 30% |
| Delay in Approaching Court | 20% |
| Offer of Solatium | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.
The Court considered the argument that the respondent should be considered under the old policy, but rejected it, holding that the new policy applied to all pending applications. The Court also considered the delay in approaching the court, which further weakened the respondent’s case.
The Court concluded that the offer of solatium under the new policy was the only remedy available to the respondent.
The Court stated:
“The fundamental principle which has to be kept in mind is that there is no inherent right to obtain a compassionate appointment and such compassionate appointment has to be in accordance with the existing policy as the objective is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant stage of time and it is the deviation from the rule of merit.”
“The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same.”
“We are thus of the view that the offer of solatium could be the only remedy available, more so at this stage of time.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench comprised of two judges, both of whom agreed with the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession granted by the employer.
- ✓ Compassionate appointment must be in accordance with the existing policy.
- ✓ If a policy is abolished, pending applications under that policy cease to exist unless specifically saved.
- ✓ Delay in approaching the court can weaken a claim for compassionate appointment.
- ✓ The new policy will apply to pending applications if the old policy is abolished.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs be paid to the respondent within two months from the date of the judgment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, and it must be in accordance with the existing policy. The new policy will apply to pending applications if the old policy is abolished. This case reinforces the existing legal position on compassionate appointments.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment under the old policy. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and it must be in accordance with the existing policy. The new policy was applicable to the respondent’s case, and he was offered benefits under it, which he declined. The Court directed the appellant to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as solatium.