1. Application for compassionate appointment declined — High Court upheld rejection based on the family's survival duration. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 2036
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
SUPRIYA SURESH PATIL @ SOW SUPRIYA PRATIK KADAM - Appellants
Vs.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5216 OF 2018
Decided On : 12-05-2018
Compassionate appointment should not be rejected solely based on the family's ability to survive for a certain duration, and other relevant factors should be considered.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Rejection based on family survival duration - The court ordered compassionate appointment for the daughter of the widow, emphasizing that the family's ability to survive for over ten years should not be the sole reason for rejection, and other considerations such as begging or borrowing should also be taken into account.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's application for compassionate appointment was declined by Respondent No. 3, and the High Court upheld the decision based on the family's ability to survive for over ten years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection based solely on the family's survival duration was not justified and ordered compassionate appointment for the daughter of the widow.
Issues: The rejection of the appellant's application for compassionate appointment and the consideration of family survival duration as the main reason for rejection.
Ratio Decidendi: The family's ability to survive for over ten years should not be the sole reason for rejecting a compassionate appointment, and other factors such as begging or borrowing should also be considered.
Final Decision: The court ordered compassionate appointment for the daughter of the widow and clarified that the order was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the family's ability to survive for ten years negates the immediate necessity required for compassionate appointment. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Survival duration alone is insufficient for rejection; the court must consider if the family survived through begging or borrowing. (Para 3 )
4. Determination of immediate necessity for compassionate appointment must evaluate the nature of the family's survival, not just the duration. (Para 3 )
5. Daughter of the deceased to be considered for compassionate appointment; impugned judgment modified. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )
6. Does the ability of a family to survive for several years after a death automatically disqualify them from compassionate appointment?
No. The court held that survival for a period, such as ten years, cannot be the major reason for rejection, as the court must consider whether the family survived by begging or borrowing. (Para 3 )
7. Under what authority can the court grant a non-precedential order to ensure complete justice in appointment matters?
The court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice, which allows for specific relief that may not be treated as a binding 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.
