Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds – When not entitled to – Appellant’s father, a constable died on duty in 1997 when he was seven years old – Appellant claimed appointment on compassionate grounds in 2008 after attaining majority – Claim rejected being time barred in view of the 1999 policy which introduced three years limit for attainment of the age of majority from the date of death of the deceased employee:
Held: Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment and cannot be claimed as a vested right for appointment – Said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection – It is an appointment given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and may be penniless – The purpose of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family – When seen in this conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government are not unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right – Appellant’s claim was rightly rejected by the respondent-State as he attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father – Impugned judgment of the High Court rejecting the appellant’s claim cannot be faulted with – However, appellant’s mother granted an opportunity to make a representation for exercising her option for the grant of lump sum ex-gratia compensation – Haryana compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employee Rules, 2006 – Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of he Deceased Government Employee Rules, 2005. [Paras 9, 12, 15, 16, 23]
Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds – Constitution of India – Article 14 – Cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality – Appellant’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds under the ex-gratia policy was rejected being time barred – Plea of the appellant that the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds had been granted to other similarly placed persons:
Held: Equality enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept based on law – It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law – Court cannot issue direction mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable – Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea – The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again – Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification. [Para 11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.