LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the rules for compassionate appointment applicable at the time of the employee’s death or at the time of consideration of the application should be applied. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa and others. Judgment Date: 20 May 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 20 May 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 511
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
When a government employee dies, their family often faces financial hardship. To mitigate this, many government schemes provide for compassionate appointment, allowing a family member to take a government job. But what happens when the rules change between the employee’s death and the processing of the application? Should the old rules or the new rules apply? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa, focusing on the impact of departmental delays on the applicant’s rights. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Case Background
The father of the appellant, Malaya Nanda Sethy, was an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department of Orissa. He passed away on January 2, 2010, while still in service. Following his death, in July 2010, Mr. Sethy applied for a Junior Clerk position on compassionate grounds under the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. His mother was unable to take up a government job due to her medical condition. The application was forwarded to the Excise Commissioner’s office and then to the Additional Secretary to the Government, Excise Department. However, the application was not processed for five years. In 2016, the Additional Secretary asked for fresh reports on the family’s financial condition and the mother’s medical status. These reports confirmed the family’s financial need and the mother’s unfitness for a government job. Despite these confirmations, the application remained pending. In the meantime, the 1990 rules were replaced by the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, which stipulated that compassionate appointments would be to ‘Group D’ base level posts. The authorities then decided to consider Mr. Sethy’s application under the new 2020 rules.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 2, 2010 | Father of the appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, passed away while in service. |
| July 2010 | Appellant applied for a Junior Clerk position on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules. |
| August 3, 2011 | Application sent to the office of the Excise Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack. |
| September 21, 2011 | Application forwarded to the Additional Secretary to the Government, Excise Department. |
| September 9, 2016 | Additional Secretary asked the Collector, Ganjam, for a fresh report on the family’s financial condition. |
| November 1, 2016 | CDMO, Ganjam, reported that the appellant’s mother was unfit for a government job. |
| February 6, 2017 | CDMO, Ganjam, submitted another report confirming the mother’s unfitness for a government job. |
| October 28, 2017 | Tehsildar, Bellaguntha, reported that the family’s annual income did not exceed Rs. 72,000. |
| February 17, 2020 | The 1990 Rules were replaced by the 2020 Rules. |
| April 26, 2021 | The Excise Commissioner directed that the appellant’s case be considered under the 2020 Rules. |
| October 26, 2021 | High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. |
| May 20, 2022 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the authorities to consider the case under the 1990 Rules. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant challenged the decision to apply the 2020 rules in a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, dismissed the petition, stating that the rules prevalent at the time of consideration of the application should apply. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation and application of two sets of rules:
✓ The Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990: These rules were in effect when the appellant’s father passed away and when the initial application for compassionate appointment was made.
✓ The Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020: These rules replaced the 1990 rules and stipulated that compassionate appointments would be to ‘Group D’ base level posts.
Rule 2(b) of the 1990 Rules defines “Family Members” as including, in order of preference:
(i) wife/husband (ii) sons…
The court noted that under the 1990 Rules, a son was eligible to apply for compassionate appointment if the wife was unable to take up the job due to medical reasons.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the rules in force at the time of the employee’s death, i.e., the 1990 Rules, should apply, not the subsequent 2020 Rules.
- He contended that his application was delayed by the department for no fault of his, and he should not suffer because of this delay.
- The appellant relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Indian Bank and others v. Promila and another, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi, The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, BSNL v. Vidya Prasad, and The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) and others v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa, to support his claim that the rules at the time of death should apply.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the amended 2020 Rules should apply as they were in force at the time of consideration of the application.
- They relied on the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench decision in N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, which held that the rules prevalent at the time of consideration of the application should be applied.
- They also pointed out that the 2020 rules specifically stated that they would apply to all pending applications.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Rules | Rules at the time of death should apply. | Appellant |
| Applicability of Rules | Rules at the time of consideration should apply. | Respondent |
| Delay in Processing | Delay was due to the department, not the applicant. | Appellant |
| Retrospective Application | 2020 rules apply to all pending applications. | Respondent |
| Precedent | Reliance on cases supporting application of rules at the time of death. | Appellant |
| Precedent | Reliance on N.C. Santosh case supporting application of rules at the time of consideration. | Respondent |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument innovatively highlighted the injustice caused by departmental delays, arguing that the applicant should not suffer due to the authorities’ inaction. This approach focused on the equitable aspect of the case, rather than a strict legal interpretation of which rules should apply.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court identified the core issue as:
- Whether the scheme/rules in force on the date of death of the government servant would apply or the scheme/rules in force on the date of consideration of the application on compassionate grounds would apply.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the scheme/rules in force on the date of death of the government servant would apply or the scheme/rules in force on the date of consideration of the application on compassionate grounds would apply. | The Court did not definitively resolve the conflict between these two positions. Instead, it decided the case based on the specific facts, emphasizing the delay and inaction of the department. The Court held that in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant was entitled to be considered under the 1990 Rules. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indian Bank and others v. Promila and another (2020) 2 SCC 729 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant | Rules at the time of death of the employee should apply. |
| State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant | Rules at the time of death of the employee should apply. |
| State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (Civil Appeal No. 6903/2021, decided on 18.11.2021) | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant | Rules at the time of death of the employee should apply. |
| The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, BSNL v. Vidya Prasad (Civil Appeal No. 6019/2021, decided on 28.09.2021) | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant | Rules at the time of death of the employee should apply. |
| The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) and others v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant | Rules at the time of death of the employee should apply. |
| N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the respondent | Rules at the time of consideration of the application should apply. |
| Rule 2(b) of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 | – | Considered by the Court | Definition of “Family Members” and eligibility for compassionate appointment. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court directed the respondents to consider the appellant’s case for compassionate appointment under the 1990 Rules, as per his original application made in July 2010. The Court emphasized that the appellant should not be penalized for the department’s delay and inaction. The Court also directed that the appointment process be completed within four weeks. The appellant would be entitled to all benefits from the date of his appointment only.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Rules at the time of death should apply. | Partially accepted in the specific facts of the case. |
| Appellant | Delay was due to the department, not the applicant. | Accepted and formed the basis of the decision. |
| Respondent | Rules at the time of consideration should apply. | Rejected in the specific facts of the case. |
| Respondent | 2020 rules apply to all pending applications. | Not applied in the specific facts of the case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the conflicting views in previous cases, focused on the specific facts of this case. The court relied on the fact that the delay was attributable to the department and not the appellant.
- The Court considered the cases cited by the appellant such as Indian Bank and others v. Promila and another [2020] 2 SCC 729*, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas [2020] 10 SCC 496*, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (Civil Appeal No. 6903/2021, decided on 18.11.2021)*, The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, BSNL v. Vidya Prasad (Civil Appeal No. 6019/2021, decided on 28.09.2021)*, and The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) and others v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264*, which supported the view that the rules at the time of death should apply. However, the Court did not explicitly endorse this view in general.
- The Court distinguished the case of N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka [2020] 7 SCC 617*, which was relied upon by the High Court and the respondents, stating that the case at hand had peculiar facts that warranted a different approach. The court did not overrule the N.C. Santosh case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the fact that the delay in processing the appellant’s application was entirely attributable to the department. The Court emphasized that the appellant should not be made to suffer due to the inaction and callousness of the authorities. The court’s reasoning focused on the following points:
- The appellant fulfilled all the eligibility criteria under the 1990 Rules.
- The department delayed processing the application for five years without any fault on the part of the appellant.
- The change in rules should not disadvantage the appellant due to the department’s delay.
- The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance, which was frustrated by the delay.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Departmental Delay | 40% |
| Applicant’s Eligibility | 30% |
| Purpose of Compassionate Appointment | 20% |
| Injustice due to Change of Rules | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the argument that the 2020 rules should apply to all pending applications. However, the court rejected this argument in the specific facts of the case, noting that the appellant should not be made to suffer due to the department’s inaction. The Court emphasized that not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and inaction on the part of the department/authorities.
The court quoted the following from the judgment:
“There was an absolute callousness on the part of the department/authorities. The facts are conspicuous and manifest the grave delay in entertaining the application submitted by the appellant in seeking employment which is indisputably attributable to the department/authorities.”
“The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned.”
“If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way.”
Key Takeaways
- Departmental delays in processing compassionate appointment applications should not disadvantage the applicant.
- The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee.
- Authorities must consider and decide such applications within a reasonable time, preferably within six months.
- The Supreme Court has not settled the conflict between the applicability of rules at the time of death or at the time of consideration of the application. The court has decided the case on the peculiar facts.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the respondents to consider the appellant’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules and complete the process within four weeks. The Court also observed that applications for compassionate appointment should be decided within six months of submission.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases where there is a significant delay by the department in processing an application for compassionate appointment, the applicant should not be disadvantaged by a change in rules during the period of delay. The court, in the present case, has not overruled the previous position of law in N.C. Santosh case, but has carved out an exception. The court has not given a blanket ruling that in all cases the rules at the time of death will be applied, but has decided the case on its peculiar facts.
Conclusion
In Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the state to consider his application for compassionate appointment under the rules that were in force at the time of his father’s death. The court emphasized that the delay in processing the application was due to the department’s inaction and the appellant should not be penalized for this delay. The judgment underscores the importance of timely processing of compassionate appointment applications and the need to ensure that the purpose of such schemes is not defeated by bureaucratic delays.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories: Compassionate Appointment, Departmental Delay, Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories: Rule 2(b) of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990
FAQ
Q: What is compassionate appointment?
A: Compassionate appointment is a scheme that allows a family member of a deceased government employee to get a government job to help the family financially after the employee’s death.
Q: What happened in the Malaya Nanda Sethy case?
A: The Supreme Court directed the State of Orissa to consider the application of Malaya Nanda Sethy for compassionate appointment under the rules that were in force when his father died, because the department delayed processing his application.
Q: What did the Supreme Court say about delays in processing these applications?
A: The Court said that authorities must consider and decide such applications within a reasonable time, preferably within six months, to ensure the purpose of compassionate appointment is not defeated.
Q: Which rules should apply for compassionate appointment, the rules at the time of death or the rules at the time of consideration?
A: The Supreme Court has not settled the conflict between the applicability of rules at the time of death or at the time of consideration of the application. The court has decided the case on the peculiar facts of the case.