Service Law: Compassionate Appointment – Claim of – Rules applicable, rules prevailing on the death of the Government servant, who died in harness or the subsequent scheme prevalent at the time of consideration of the application – On facts, appellant applied for appointment as a Junior Clerk on compassionate ground under the 1990 Rules – However, application kept pending for consideration – Meanwhile, 1990 Rules replaced by 2020 Rules – Thereafter, the application was considered under the 2020 Rules – Writ petition by the appellant challenging the same– Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Appellant fulfilled all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules – There was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all – Delay was on the part of department/authorities throughout on one ground or the other – Appellant is deprived of seeking compassionate appointment which he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990 Rules, thus, cannot be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules – Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 – Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020.
Compassionate Appointment – Object and Purpose of – Held: Basis or policy of compassionate appointment is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee consequent upon his untimely death while in service – Thus, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for compassionate appointment on grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications – Application are to be considered well in time and not in a tardy way – Consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration – It cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as per the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, which were applicable at the time when the deceased employee died and the appellant made an application for appointment on the death of his father, i.e., in the year 2010. [Para 5][714-C-D]
1.2 It is not in dispute that the deceased employee died on 2.1.2010 while in service. Immediately, in July 2010, the appellant applied for appointment on compassionate ground as a Junior Clerk under the 1990 Rules. As per Rule 2(b) of the 1990 Rules, “Family Members” shall mean and include the members in order of preference, which include, (i) wife/husband (ii) sons....... Therefore, when the mother was unable to undertake a government job due to her medical condition, the appellant, being the son was entitled to apply for appointment on the death of his father. That the application of the appellant, though was forwarded in the year 2011, was kept pending consideration initially for a period of five years. The same was attended to after a period of five years by the Additional Secretary. A fresh report regarding the financial condition of the family of the deceased government servant was called for. Also the Medical Board examined the mother of the appellant and furnished a report stating that she was unfit for a government job. Though the appellant fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and/or conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds, he was not appointed as a Junior Clerk as per 1990 Rules. However, in the meantime, 1990 Rules came to be replaced and the 2020 Rules came into force. [Para 6][714E, F-H; 715-A, B, C-D]
1.3 There was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his application was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all throughout there was a delay on the part of the department/authorities, the appellant should not be made to suffer. Not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities. 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. In fact, the appellant has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990 Rules. 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. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open and aside, the appellant would not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment under the 1990 Rules as per his original application made in 2010 and if he is otherwise found eligible to appoint him as Junior Clerk. [Paras 7 and 8][715-DH; 716-A-C]
2.1 The object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. [Para 9][716-D-E]
2.2 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. There are cases of nearly two decades, wherein the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. Therefore, it is directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. [Para 9][717-A-C] N. C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617 : [2020] 3 SCR 1177; Indian Bank and others v. Promila and Another (2020) 2 SCC 729 : [2020] 1 SCR 408; 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; The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) and Others v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.