Service law:
Compassionate appointment – Claim of – Delay of over a decade in raising a claim by son of the deceased government employee– Effect of – Held: Essence of the claim of compassionate appointment lies in the immediacy of the need – Recourse to the tribunal suffered from a delay of over a decade in the first instance – Staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment – Thus, the claim of compassionate appointment is rejected – Judgment of the High Court which had allowed the claim is set aside – Delay/laches. Administration of justice:
Speedy disposal of cases – ‘Dispose of the representation’ mantra – Effect of – Held: Is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the tribunals – Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions – However, they do no service to the cause of justice – Litigant is back again before the court, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Compassionate appointment, is intended to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. It is evident that even the first recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set of representations had been rejected in 1997. The tribunal, unfortunately, passed a succession of orders calling upon the appellants to consider and then re-consider the representations for compassionate appointment. After the Government rejected the representation in 2007, it was only in 2010 that the tribunal was moved again, with the same result. These successive orders of tribunal for re-consideration of the representation cannot obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the tribunal for compassionate appointment over a decade after the death of the deceased employee. This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. By the time, the High Court issued its direction on 9 August 2016, nearly twenty one years had elapsed since the date of the death of the employee. [Para 8][981-D-H; 982-A]
1.2 The recourse to the tribunal suffered from a delay of over a decade in the first instance. This staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment. The claim was liable to be rejected on that ground and ought to have been so rejected. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and is set aside. The judgment of the tribunal dismissing the Original Application is upheld. [Paras 11, 12] [982-G; 983-A]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC
138 – 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.