Supreme Court Denies Compassionate Appointment to Married Daughter: State of Maharashtra vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 841

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.

Can a married daughter claim compassionate appointment after her mother, who was herself appointed on compassionate grounds, passes away? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the scope and limitations of compassionate appointments. This case highlights the importance of the financial status of the family and the purpose of compassionate appointment. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The respondent’s father, an employee of the Maharashtra state government, passed away while in service. Following his death, the respondent’s mother was appointed on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, the mother also passed away while still in service. The respondent’s elder sister then applied for compassionate appointment, but her application was rejected in 2011 because she was a married daughter. Later, the respondent, another married daughter, applied for the same in 2013. Her application was also rejected on 23.04.2013. The respondent then approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in 2015, which ruled in her favor. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the Tribunal’s decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the state to consider her case for compassionate appointment. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld this decision, leading the State of Maharashtra to appeal to the Supreme Court. The state challenged the decisions of the lower courts, arguing that the respondent, being a married daughter, was not eligible for compassionate appointment, especially after a significant time had passed since her mother’s death.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the principles governing compassionate appointments, emphasizing that such appointments are an exception to the general rule of public service appointments based on merit. The court cited Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandate equal opportunity in public employment. Compassionate appointments are made to provide immediate relief to a family facing destitution due to the death of the breadwinner.

The court noted that compassionate appointments are not a source of recruitment but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme.

Arguments

The State of Maharashtra argued that the respondent, being a married daughter, was not dependent on her deceased mother and therefore not eligible for compassionate appointment. They emphasized that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial hardship due to the death of the breadwinner. The state also highlighted that a considerable time had passed since the death of the respondent’s mother, and thus, the need for immediate relief no longer existed.

The respondent contended that she was a legal heir of her deceased mother and, therefore, entitled to compassionate appointment. She argued that the government circular dated 26.02.2013, provided for employment to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased government servant on compassionate grounds. She further argued that the Tribunal and the High Court had rightly directed the state to consider her case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the respondent shall be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground?”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment.

Authorities and their use by the Court:

✓ Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree [2021 SCC Online SC 704]: The Supreme Court referred to this case to highlight the principles governing compassionate appointments, noting that it is an exception to the general rule and not a right.

✓ N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka [(2020) 7 SCC 617]: This case was cited to reinforce the principles that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and should be made on fulfilling the laid down norms.

✓ State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653]: The Court used this case to emphasize that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.

✓ Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC [(2005) 10 SCC 289]: This case was referred to discuss the nature of compassionate appointment, highlighting that it is not meant to give a family member a post.

✓ Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of merit-based appointment and is meant to provide relief to a family in penury.

✓ Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384]: This case was cited to support the principle that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in public services. It is intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing destitution due to the death of the breadwinner. The court found that the respondent, being a married daughter, could not be considered dependent on her deceased mother, and a significant time had passed since the mother’s death. The court also reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and should not be treated as a matter of right. The court was also influenced by the fact that the mother of the respondent was herself appointed on compassionate ground.

The Court observed, “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.”

The Court further stated, “The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.”

The Court also noted, “compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood.”

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public service appointments.
• A married daughter is generally not considered dependent on her deceased mother for compassionate appointment purposes.
• Compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate relief to families facing financial hardship.
• A significant delay in applying for compassionate appointment can weaken the claim.
• Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and should not be seen as a matter of right.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a married daughter is not considered a dependent for the purpose of compassionate appointment after the death of her mother, who was herself appointed on compassionate grounds. This judgment reinforces the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment and is intended for immediate relief to a family facing financial crisis. This clarifies the scope of compassionate appointment and emphasizes the need for dependency and immediacy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate clarifies that a married daughter is not automatically entitled to compassionate appointment after the death of her mother, especially when the mother was herself appointed on compassionate grounds. The Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointments are meant for immediate financial relief and are not a source of recruitment. This judgment underscores the importance of dependency and timeliness in claiming compassionate appointments.