Supreme Court clarifies the scope of compassionate appointment: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 16 January 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 16

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a family’s pension and other benefits be considered when deciding on a compassionate appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the criteria for compassionate appointments in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar. This judgment clarifies whether a family’s financial stability, including pension and other benefits, should be a factor in granting compassionate appointment.

Case Background

The respondent’s father, an employee of the Horticulture Department in Kullu, passed away on March 29, 2005, while still in service. Following his death, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment on May 8, 2007. The application was forwarded to the relevant authorities on September 14, 2007. On January 15, 2008, the Additional Secretary (Horticulture) requested that the respondent provide an updated income certificate that included the family pension. After this request, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court on May 11, 2015, after a delay of over seven years, claiming that he was compelled to do so because of lack of response to his representations.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh consolidated several Letters Patent Appeals and Writ Petitions concerning compassionate appointments, all stemming from a policy dated January 18, 1990. The High Court framed nine issues. The State of Himachal Pradesh contested the High Court’s decision on issues (i) and (vii), which are the focus of this appeal.

Legal Framework

The core of the case revolves around the policy for compassionate appointments framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on January 18, 1990. This policy aims to provide employment to the dependents of government servants who die in service, leaving their families in need of immediate assistance. The policy states that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is granted in deserving cases where the family is in indigent circumstances.

Relevant provisions of the policy include:

• Paragraph 1: States that employment on compassionate grounds is not a right, but is for families in “indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence.”
• Paragraph 2: Specifies that the policy applies in order of priority to a widow, son, or unmarried daughter.
• Paragraph 4: Limits compassionate appointments to the lowest rung of Class-III and Class-IV posts.
• Paragraph 8: Requires requests for employment assistance within three years of the government servant’s death, with an extension to 21 years of age for the eldest child if none were of majority at the time of death.
• Paragraph 10(c): States that benefits received by the family due to welfare measures, including family pension and death gratuity, “may be kept in view” while considering compassionate appointments.

A clarification issued on August 24, 2002, defined “indigent circumstances” by considering assets, income from various sources including pension, liabilities, and the standard of life of the family. An office memorandum dated April 4, 2008, clarified that no specific “indigent certificate” is required, and the focus should be on examining the family’s income. On November 1, 2008, the Finance Department prescribed income criteria, including monthly pension/family pension, dearness relief, and interim relief in the calculation of yearly family income, while excluding gratuity, leave encashment, and commutation amounts.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh):

• The State argued that compassionate appointment is intended to assist families in immediate need of subsistence due to the death of the employee. The policy, as amended, requires that the family’s indigence be determined by considering all assets, income sources (including pension), and liabilities.

• The State submitted that the High Court was not justified in directing the State to ignore the policy, which mandates that pensionary benefits be considered. While one-time payments like gratuity and leave encashment are excluded, monthly pension, family pension, dearness relief, and interim relief are included.

• The State contended that the income ceiling prescribed by the Finance Department is a fair way to assess applications, reducing discretion and ensuring uniformity.

• The State pointed out that the respondent’s application was submitted in 2007, and the writ petition was filed in 2015, well over seven years later. This delay should result in the rejection of the application, as compassionate appointment is meant to address immediate crises.

Respondent (Shashi Kumar):

• The respondent argued that the delay should not hinder the consideration of his application. The policy extends the time limit until the eldest child reaches 21 years of age if none of the children were majors at the time of the employee’s death. By analogy, delay should not be a ground for rejection.

• The respondent relied on the High Court’s decision, which was based on judgments of the Supreme Court, to argue that family pension should not be included in the family income for determining compassionate appointment.

• The respondent argued that the income slab prescribed by the Finance Department is an invalid amendment to the policy and that the income limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (later revised to Rs. 1,50,000/-) is unduly low, denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to deserving families.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the amount of family pension and other retiral benefits received by the family of the deceased employee can be included in the family income for denying compassionate appointment?
2. Whether a person can claim compassionate appointment after a considerable delay?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision. The Court held that:

The Court also clarified that:

• The High Court’s direction to disregard family pension and other terminal benefits was incorrect.
• The State’s policy of fixing income limits is valid, but the income limits should be periodically revised, preferably every three years, to account for inflation and the cost of living.

The Court cited various authorities to support its decision.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [1994] 4 SCC 138*, which highlighted that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and meant to provide immediate relief to families in penury.
• The Court followed General Manager (D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary [2004] 7 SCC 271* and Punjab National Bank vs. Ashwani Kumar Taneja [2004] 7 SCC 265*, which emphasized the consideration of family pension and terminal benefits in assessing the financial condition of the family.
• The Court relied on State Bank of India vs. Somvir Singh [2007] 4 SCC 778*, which upheld the consideration of terminal benefits, investments, and monthly family income, including pension.
• The Court reiterated the view in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra [2008] 11 SCC 384*, that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a means to overcome a sudden financial crisis.
• The Court followed Union of India vs. Shashank Goswami [2012] 11 SCC 307* and State Bank of India vs. Surya Narain Tripathi [2014] 15 SCC 739*, which stated that total family income, including terminal benefits, must be considered.
• The Court discussed the importance of timeliness in seeking compassionate appointment, as highlighted in State of J&K vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir [2006] 5 SCC 766* and Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvanayagam [2011] 13 SCC 42*.
• The Court distinguished Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India [2005] 10 SCC 289*, stating that it did not consider earlier binding precedents. The Court held that the family pension and other terminal benefits cannot be excluded from consideration.
• The Court distinguished Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar [2015] 7 SCC 412*, stating that it dealt with the applicability of a subsequent scheme, and the observation that family pension is of no consequence was not the ratio of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following points:

• The explicit terms of the State’s compassionate appointment policy, which required the consideration of all benefits, including family pension, when determining the family’s financial status.
• The need to maintain a balance between providing immediate relief to families in distress and ensuring that compassionate appointments are not treated as a regular source of employment.
• The importance of adhering to the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public service appointments and is meant to address immediate crises.
• The need to avoid arbitrariness in the decision-making process by fixing income limits and periodically revising them to account for inflation and the cost of living.
• The significance of timeliness in seeking compassionate appointment, as delay defeats the very purpose of providing immediate relief.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that delay should be overlooked, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is meant to address immediate crises. The Court also addressed the income slab issue, noting that while the facts of each case should be considered, income slabs help reduce arbitrariness and ensure uniformity. The Court directed the State to periodically revise the income limits.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The policy in the present case which was formulated on 18 January 1990 categorically speaks of providing employment assistance to dependants of government servants who have died while in service, “leaving their families in indigent circumstances”.”
• “The receipt of family pension is, therefore, one of the considerations which is to be taken into account. Paragraph 10(c) of the Policy sets out the measures provided by the State which have a bearing on the financial need of the family.”
• “In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment.”

Key Takeaways

• Family pension and other terminal benefits can be considered when assessing a family’s financial status for compassionate appointment.
• Compassionate appointment is not a right but an exception to provide immediate relief to families in distress.
• Delay in applying for compassionate appointment can be a valid reason for rejection.
• Income limits for compassionate appointments are valid, but they should be periodically revised to account for inflation and cost of living.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State Government to revisit the income limits for compassionate appointment at intervals of three years or earlier, considering the cost of living, inflation, and other relevant factors.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that family pension and other terminal benefits can be considered when assessing a family’s financial status for compassionate appointment. This clarifies the previous position of law by distinguishing the cases like Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India [2005] 10 SCC 289* and Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar [2015] 7 SCC 412*.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar clarifies that family pension and other terminal benefits can be considered when determining eligibility for compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is intended to provide immediate relief to families in financial distress. The Court also highlighted the significance of timeliness in seeking compassionate appointment and directed the State Government to periodically review income limits. This judgment provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the criteria and limitations of compassionate appointments.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Compassionate Appointment
• Family Pension
• Indigent Circumstances
• Delay
• State Government Policy
• Service Law: Compassionate Appointment

FAQ

Q: Can my family’s pension be considered when applying for a compassionate appointment?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that family pension and other terminal benefits can be considered when evaluating a family’s financial status for compassionate appointment.

Q: Is compassionate appointment a right?

A: No, compassionate appointment is not a right. It is an exception to the general rule of public service appointments and is meant to provide immediate relief to families in distress.

Q: How long can I wait before applying for compassionate appointment?

A: The Supreme Court has emphasized that delay in applying for compassionate appointment can be a valid reason for rejection. It is important to apply as soon as possible after the death of the employee.

Q: Are there income limits for compassionate appointments?

A: Yes, the State Government can fix income limits to determine eligibility for compassionate appointment. However, these limits should be periodically revised to account for inflation and cost of living.

Q: What is the purpose of compassionate appointment?

A: The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to families who are in distress due to the death of a government employee. It is not meant to be a regular source of employment.