Supreme Court Sets Aside Compassionate Appointment Order Due to Delay: Govt. of India vs. P. Venkatesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 1 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 170

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

Can a claim for compassionate appointment be entertained many years after the death of the government employee? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court had ordered a compassionate appointment despite a significant delay. The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief to a family facing a crisis due to the death of the breadwinner and cannot be claimed after a long delay. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J, with the opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The respondent’s father, an employee of the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, passed away on 25 May 1996. Following his death, the respondent’s mother applied for a compassionate appointment. This initial request was turned down on 3 January 1997. A subsequent representation was also rejected on 1 July 1999. The respondent then initiated legal proceedings in 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Madras.

The Tribunal initially directed the appellants to reconsider the representation in 2007. However, this reconsideration also resulted in rejection on 13 November 2007. The respondent again approached the Tribunal in 2010, which led to another direction for reconsideration. This second reconsideration again resulted in rejection on 25 August 2011. The respondent then filed a third Original Application (OA) which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 30 April 2013, citing that the maximum period for considering a compassionate appointment was three years.

The respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which set aside the Tribunal’s decision and ordered the appellants to grant a compassionate appointment. The High Court noted that the rejection was based on the fact that the respondent’s elder brother was gainfully employed, but his salary certificate showed he was a daily wage worker.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T) Office Memorandum No.14014/3/2011 – ESST(D) dated 26.07.2012, which outlines the scheme for compassionate appointments. The Tribunal had noted that under this scheme, the maximum period for which the name of a candidate for compassionate appointment could be kept for consideration was three years. The Supreme Court also relied on the principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, which discusses the purpose of compassionate appointment.

The Court quoted from Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana:

“2…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 a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”

The Court further quoted from the same case:

“6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the High Court erred in directing compassionate appointment after a significant delay. They contended that the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee, which is not the case when the claim is made after many years. The appellants highlighted the fact that the respondent first approached the Tribunal in 2007, which was nearly eleven years after the death of the employee.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the High Court was correct in granting the compassionate appointment, as the initial rejection was based on incorrect facts. They argued that the elder brother of the respondent was not gainfully employed as a permanent employee, but was working on a daily wage basis. The respondent argued that the delay was due to the repeated rejections by the authorities and the directions given by the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The appellants relied on the principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after a lapse of reasonable time. The respondent did not cite any specific authorities to counter this argument.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue before the Court was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellants to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent after a delay of nearly twenty-one years since the death of his father.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 – Supreme Court of India. The Court relied on this case to emphasize that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family to tide over a sudden crisis and cannot be claimed after a long delay.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provision:

• DOP&T OM No.14014/3/2011 – ESST(D) dated 26.07.2012 – This Office Memorandum outlines the scheme for compassionate appointments, which specifies a maximum period of three years for considering a candidate for compassionate appointment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and affirming the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the Original Application. The Court held that the delay of over a decade in approaching the Tribunal for compassionate appointment took away the very basis of providing such appointment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the significant delay in approaching the Tribunal for compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief to a family facing a crisis due to the death of the breadwinner. The Court noted that the delay of over a decade in approaching the Tribunal took away the very basis for providing such appointment. The Court also expressed concern over the practice of Tribunals and High Courts passing orders directing authorities to “consider” or “reconsider” representations without addressing the core issue, which only leads to further delays and litigation.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual aspect of the case, particularly the delay in approaching the Tribunal. The legal principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana were used to support the Court’s reasoning, but the factual delay was the primary factor that influenced the Court’s decision.

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the High Court was correct in granting the compassionate appointment, but rejected it based on the principle that compassionate appointment is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future. The Court emphasized that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the financial crisis immediately after the death of the breadwinner.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after a long delay. The Court emphasized the need for timely action in such matters. The Court also noted that the successive orders of the Tribunal for reconsideration of the representation cannot obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the Tribunal.

The Court quoted the following from Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana: “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.”

The Court also quoted: “The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. Both judges agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointment is not a vested right that can be claimed at any time.
• The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee.
• Claims for compassionate appointment must be made within a reasonable time after the death of the employee.
• Orders for “consideration” or “reconsideration” of representations without addressing the core issue are ineffective and lead to further delays.
• The judgment emphasizes the need for timely action in matters of compassionate appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s order and affirming the Tribunal’s decision.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion about any specific amendment in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a significant delay, as it defeats the very purpose of providing immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee. The judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and clarifies that compassionate appointment is not a vested right that can be claimed at any time in the future. This judgment emphasizes the need for timely action in matters of compassionate appointment and sets a precedent for rejecting claims made after a long delay.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Govt. of India vs. P. Venkatesh underscores the importance of timely action in claims for compassionate appointment. The Court held that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing a crisis due to the death of the breadwinner and cannot be claimed after a long delay. The judgment sets aside the High Court’s order and affirms the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing that the delay of over a decade in approaching the Tribunal took away the very basis for providing compassionate appointment.