Supreme Court Denies Compassionate Appointment After 18-Year Delay: Steel Authority of India vs. Gouri Devi (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 18 November 2021

Citation: (2021) Civil Appeal No. 6910 of 2021

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a family member claim compassionate appointment many years after the death of the employee, especially if an earlier claim was rejected? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case involving the Steel Authority of India Limited and a claimant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The court examined the impact of a significant delay on such claims, emphasizing the need for timely action to avail the benefit of compassionate appointment. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around the claim for compassionate appointment by the family of a deceased employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited. The employee passed away in 1977. Initially, the eldest son of the deceased applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected in the same year, 1977. This decision was not challenged. Nearly two decades later, in 1996, the widow of the deceased employee filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa, seeking appointment for her second son on compassionate grounds. This petition was later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, and registered as T.A. No. 14 of 2014. The Tribunal directed the Steel Authority of India to reconsider the second son’s case, a decision that was upheld by the High Court. This led to the Steel Authority of India appealing to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial application for compassionate appointment by the eldest son was rejected in 1977. The widow’s subsequent writ petition in 1996, seeking appointment for her second son, was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, which directed the Steel Authority of India to reconsider the case. The High Court of Orissa upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The High Court’s decision primarily narrated the submissions of both parties without any independent findings or discussion on the aspect of delay. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not address the significant delay of 18 years in making the second application.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily relies on established precedents regarding compassionate appointment. The core principle is that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that public employment should be based on merit. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774, and State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766, which emphasized that delay in seeking compassionate appointment defeats the very purpose of providing immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee. The court noted that compassionate appointment is not a heritable right and should be provided only when the family faces immediate financial distress due to the death of the breadwinner.

Arguments

Appellant (Steel Authority of India Limited) Arguments:

• ✓ The appellant argued that the second application for compassionate appointment, made after 18 years of the employee’s death, was not maintainable due to the significant delay.
• ✓ The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774, and State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766, which held that delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment.
• ✓ The appellant argued that the initial rejection of the eldest son’s application in 1977 had attained finality, and a subsequent application for the second son was not permissible.

Respondent (Gouri Devi) Arguments:

• ✓ The respondent argued that her second son should be given compassionate appointment as the family was still in need of financial support.
• ✓ The respondent contended that the delay should be condoned considering the circumstances of the family.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the second application for compassionate appointment, made after a delay of 18 years, could be considered, especially when a prior application by the eldest son had been rejected.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to emphasize that delay in pursuing a claim for compassionate appointment would defeat the objective of providing immediate relief to the family.
• State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to highlight that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment based on merit and should not be granted after a significant delay.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, holding that the second son of the respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment. The court emphasized the significant delay of 18 years in making the second application and the fact that the first application by the eldest son had been rejected, which had attained finality.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court followed Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774* to emphasize that delay in pursuing a claim for compassionate appointment would defeat the objective of providing immediate relief to the family.

✓ The Supreme Court followed State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766* to highlight that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment based on merit and should not be granted after a significant delay.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the significant delay of 18 years in making the second application for compassionate appointment. The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial distress due to the death of the breadwinner. The court also considered the fact that the initial application for compassionate appointment by the eldest son was rejected in 1977, and that decision had attained finality. The court’s reasoning focused on the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment based on merit and should not be used to circumvent normal recruitment procedures after a long delay. The court’s reasoning also highlighted the importance of timely action in seeking such appointments.

“delay in pursuing claim/approaching court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished.”

“appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to general rule that appointment to public office should be made on the basis of competitive merits.”

“once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Compassionate appointment is not a heritable right and cannot be claimed after a significant delay.
• ✓ Delay in seeking compassionate appointment can be a major factor in the rejection of such claims.
• ✓ The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to families in financial distress following the death of the breadwinner.
• ✓ Previous rejections of compassionate appointment applications can attain finality and cannot be reopened after a long period.
• ✓ The Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointment should not be used to circumvent normal recruitment procedures.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, and directed that the second son of the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a second application for compassionate appointment after a significant delay of 18 years, especially when a prior application by another family member was rejected, is not maintainable. This judgment reinforces the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment based on merit and is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee. The decision reiterates that delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment and that such appointments should not be used to circumvent normal recruitment procedures. There is no change in the previous position of law, but a reiteration of the importance of timely action in claiming compassionate appointment.

Conclusion

In the case of Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Gouri Devi, the Supreme Court held that a second application for compassionate appointment made 18 years after the death of the employee and after the rejection of the first application by the eldest son, was not maintainable. The court emphasized the importance of timely action in seeking compassionate appointment and reiterated that such appointments are an exception to the general rule of appointment based on merit. This judgment reinforces the principle that delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment.