Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Union of India & Ors - Appellants
Versus
Amrita Sinha - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7640-7641 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.1413-1414 of 2019)
Decided on : 11-12-2021
Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Pension is not an act of bounty, but is towards service which has been rendered by an employee – However, in evaluating a claim for compassionate appointment, it is open to authorities to evaluate financial position of family upon death while in service – Compassionate appointment is not a vested right – It is provided in order to enable a family to tide over a financial crisis caused by death of its wage-earner while in service – If scheme requires that family pension must be taken into account in evaluating merits of an application, it has to be followed – In present case, family pension which was payable as on date of consideration of application has been taken into account – Fact that pension would be up for revision in terms of policy after a decade was not a reason to discard pensionary payment which was being made towards family pension on date of consideration of application for compassionate appointment – Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but is to enable family to tide over an immediate crisis which may result from death of employee – If policy of government envisages that family pension would be paid for a ten years after which it would have to be modified, it cannot be said that by taking into account present pensionary payment, authorities have considered an extraneous circumstance – Same criterion is applied even-handedly to all applicants seeking compassionate appointment – Absent a case of palpable arbitrariness, there was no reason for High Court or Tribunal to interfere with evaluation which was conducted by authorities in terms of applicable guidelines – Grant of compassionate appointment would not be in accordance with basic purpose and object of such a scheme – Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside and OA filed by respondent shall stand dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Spouse of the respondent was holding the rank of Sergeant in Indian Air Force. During the course of his employment, he died due to cancer on 6th January 2008, leaving behind respondent and two minor children. Application was filed by the respondent seeking compassionate appointment, but, it was rejected. Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by its judgment dated 26th April 2018, has affirmed the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, directing the appellants to reconsider the claim of respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds for a post corresponding to her qualifications against vacancies for 2014-15.
Findings of Court:
High Court has affirmed the view of the Tribunal by coming to the conclusion that the payment which was being made to the respondent was ad hoc in nature and was wrongly considered by authorities while awarding merit points. This line of reasoning of High Court is equally erroneous as that of the Tribunal.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by its judgment dated 26 April 2018, has affirmed the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal1[“Tribunal”], directing the appellants to reconsider the claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds for a post corresponding to her qualifications against vacancies for 2014-15.
4. The spouse of the respondent was holding the rank of Sargent in the Indian Air Force. During the course of his employment, he died due to cancer on 6 January 2008, leaving behind the respondent and two minor children. An application was filed by the respondent seeking compassionate appointment, but, it was rejected on 17 February 2011. A subsequent application which was filed on 11 February 2014 was also rejected on 16 June 2015 on the ground that the respondent had secured merit points which did not enable her to obtain compassionate appointment.
5. The Union of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) issued an OM2[OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D)] on 9 October 1998 titled “Scheme of Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government”. On 22 January 2010, the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence3[“MoD”] issued an OM4[F.No.19(3/2009/D)(Lab)] titled “Scheme of Compassionate Appointment Relative Merit, Point and Revised Procedure for Selection”. This was followed by another OM5[F.No.19(3/2009/D)(Lab)] of the MoD dated 14 May 2010.
6. Following the death of her husband, the respondent was in the receipt of a family pension in the amount of Rs 8,265 per month. The total terminal benefits which were paid to the respondent were in the amount of Rs 22,91,568. The case of the respondent for compassionate appointment was evaluated and merit points were assigned under various heads in terms of the procedure which was prescribed by the MoD. The respondent, however, submitted that the family pension at the above rate was payable from 7 January 2008 to 6 January 2018, after which the amount of pension would stand reduced to Rs 4,959 per month. On this basis, the respondent submitted before the Tribunal that she should have been awarded 16 merit points instead of 10 against the head of family pension. The Tribunal observed that the denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that the respondent was drawing a monthly pension of Rs 8,265 on the date of consideration of the case was not justifiable as pension is paid for the service rendered by a deceased employee. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the quantum of pension would stand reduced with effect from 7 January 2018 to Rs 4,959 per month and since the deceased employee had died due to a terminal illness, the family “might be in debt” and “might have sold the property for his treatment”, while, at the same time, observing that it was not going into those aspects. On this basis, the letter of rejection was quashed and the appellants were directed to reconsider the case. The High Court, while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, has held that the authorities have erred in taking into account the family pension in the monthly income, since this was an adhoc income earned by the respondent, instead of considering the regular pension which would be earned with effect from 7 January 2018.
7. We have heard Ms Madhavi Divan, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr Rabin Majumder, Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
8. Ms Madhavi Divan submitted that the case of the respondent was considered strictly within the parameters of the OM and merit points were assigned. It has been urged that the authorities were justified in taking into account the family pension which was being earned as on the date of the consideration of the application and the fact that the pensionary payments would be reduced after a lapse of ten years would not be a ground to reassign the merit po
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
