1. Application for compassionate appointment declined — High Court upheld rejection based on the family's survival period after the employee's death. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1317
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Supriya Suresh Patil @ Sow Supriya Pratik Kadam - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5216 of 2018 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 4420 of 2018]
Decided On : 12-05-2018
Important Points
The Court held that a family's ability to survive for several years should not be the primary reason for rejecting a compassionate appointment claim. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that the daughter be considered for appointment to ensure complete justice.
Subject
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - AGE LIMIT
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 142—Compassionate appointment—Rejection of—Daughter—Reason for rejecting that family had managed to survive for over ten years and, therefore, there was no immediate necessity—This cannot be a major reason for rejection—Whether family pulled on begging or borrowing also should have been one consideration—Widow already empaneled for appointment under Compassionate Appointment Scheme, but declined benefit only on account of crossing the age—Directions issued that daughter should be considered for compassionate appointment—Held, that this order is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice and hence, it may not be treated as a precedent.
Order Accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh
For the Respondents: Mr. Kunal Cheema, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh
For the Respondents: Mr. Kunal Cheema, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
Table of Contents
2. Whether the family's survival for a significant period after the employee's death negates the immediate necessity for compassionate appointment. (Para 3 )
3. Survival for a period is not a sufficient reason for rejection; the court must consider if the family survived by begging or borrowing. (Para 3 )
4. Jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India may be exercised to do complete justice in compassionate appointment matters. (Para 4 )
5. Daughter of the deceased employee to be considered for compassionate appointment; impugned judgment modified. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )
6. Does the family's survival for a period after the employee's death automatically disqualify them from compassionate appointment?
No. The court held that survival for a period cannot be the primary reason for rejection, as the court must consider whether the family survived through begging or borrowing. (Para 3 )
7. Under what authority can the court grant relief in compassionate appointment cases to ensure complete justice?
The court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice, even if the order is not intended to serve as a precedent. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
Kurian, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved since her application for compassionate appointment was declined by Respondent No. 3. The appellant was unsuccessful before the High Court.
3. We find from the Judgment of the High Court that the main reason for rejecting the case of the appellant was that the family had managed to survive for over ten years and, therefore, there was no immediate necessity. We are afraid that this cannot be a major reason for rejection. Whether the family pulled on begging or borrowing also should have been one consideration. We do not propose to deal with the matter any further in the peculiar facts of this case. The widow had already been empaneled for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, but was declined the benefit only on account of crossing the age. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts of this case, her daughter should be considered for compassionate appointment. Ordered accordingly.
4. We make it clear that this order is passed in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice and hence, it may not be treated as a precedent.
5. The needful shall be done by the respondents within one month from today.
6. The impugned Judgment will stand modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of as above. No costs.
