Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Tinku – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024
Decided On : 13-11-2024
(A) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Right to Equality – Very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law – It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law – No direction can be issued mandating 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 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 – Court will not compel authority to repeat that illegality over again – If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against tenets of justice but would negate its ethos resulting in law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness – Court cannot ignore law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction – Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification. (Para 11)
(B) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Compassionate appointment is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection – It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of various parameters as laid down with intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution where sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless – Compassionate appointment is provided to bail out family of deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for employment, family will not be able to meet the crisis – This shall in any case be subject to claimant fulfilling requirements as laid down in policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment – In a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for appointment on compassionate grounds, such appointment cannot be granted – Purpose of such policies is to give immediate succour to family – Three years as has been laid down from date of death of employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant which includes attainment of majority as per 1999 policy instructions issued by Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right. (Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15)
(C) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Since Appellant was a minor, his claim was kept pending – Appellant attained majority 11 years after unfortunate death of his father – Claim has rightly been rejected by respondent State – Decisions of High Court vide impugned Judgments rejecting claim of Appellant cannot be faulted with – As per 2006 Rules, claim of dependants of deceased employee would enure for consideration to ex-gratia compensation – All through claim of employment of Appellant was pending with respondents and consequently right of consideration of claim for ex-gratia compensation would also subsist – Given an option, mother of Appellant could have sought benefit of such compensation had she been informed in time about non-acceptance of her request for employment of her minor son – She was kept waiting for a final decision on the claim till its rejection in 2009 – Inaction on part of State in intimating her of her entitlement to put forth the claim is reason for she having not opted for it – It would be just and reasonable that one opportunity is granted to widow of deceased government employee and the mother of Appellant, to make representation for exercising her option for grant of lump sum ex-gratia compensation – Lump sum compensation, if granted and released within time stipulated, shall not carry any interest. (Paras 16, 19, 20, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
This Appeal has been preferred by son of a deceased constable in Haryana Police, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as his father and another constable died while on duty on 22.11.1997. Appellant then was seven years of age, and policy which was in force was dated 08.05.1995 which provided for ex-gratia appointment confined to Class III and IV posts. Widow of other police constable, who died along with father of Appellant, was granted compassionate appointment as a constable upon her application.
Findings of Court:
On submission of representation, same shall be considered by competent authority and a decision taken thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt thereof.
Result : Appeal disposed of with observations.
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. This Appeal has been preferred by the son of Shri Jai Prakash, a deceased constable in Haryana Police, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as his father and another constable died while on duty on 22.11.1997. The Appellant then was seven years of age, and the policy which was in force was dated 08.05.1995 which provided for ex-gratia appointment confined to Class III and IV posts. The widow of Balwan Singh, the other police constable, who died along with the father of the Appellant, was granted compassionate appointment as a constable upon her application.
2. The mother of the Appellant, being illiterate, could not seek an appointment for herself and therefore applied for compassionate appointment for her son, the Appellant herein. A letter from the Director General of Police, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “DGP”) dated 15.04.1998 was received by the Superintendent of Police on 20.04.1998 directing the name of the Appellant, Tinku, son of deceased Constable Jaiprakash, to be entered in the Minor’s Register No. 47. This indicated the intention of the authorities of reserving one post for grant of employment to the Appellant at a later stage being minor child of deceased employee as per the applicable policy.
3. Since the Appellant was a minor, his claim was kept pending. A further communication from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, dated 30.12.2003, was received by the mother of the Appellant that on attainment of the age of majority, the Appellant should approach the Office of the Welfare Inspector to get the case prepared. It is on this basis that the Appellant approached the DGP by way of representation dated 30.10.2008 putting forth his claim for appointment under the ex-gratia scheme, specifying therein that he had attained the age of majority on 10.10.2008. His mother also submitted a representation to the DGP, making reference to the earlier communications as mentioned above for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy.
4. The claim of the Appellant was considered, and communication was received from the DGP dated 28.04.2009 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, with a copy thereof to the mother of the Appellant intimating rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. The reason assigned was that from the date of death of the Appellant’s father till he having become major 11 years had passed rendering the claim time barred when taken from the date of death of the father of the Appellant. For this reliance was placed on the Government instructions dated 22.03.1999 where a minor dependent of a deceased government employee gets the benefit provided he/she attains age of majority within a period of three years from the date of death of the government employee. It was further intimated that, as per the “Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees” Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “2006 Rules”), which were then in force, whereunder the claim was considered, did not contain provision for providing a job under the ex- gratia scheme.
5. Faced with this situation, the Appellant had preferred a writ petition before the High Court in the year 2009, with the plea of promissory estoppel in the light of communications received referred to above. The writ was dismissed on 12.01.2021 holding therein that the principle of estoppel would not be applicable to the case in hand as it was only a communication which was sent to the petitioner with regard to the name having been entered in the minor’s register, while the subsequent communication from the Superintendent of Police was for approaching the authority on the attainment of the age of majority by the ward. An aspect with regard to the delay from the date of death of the father of the Appellant till the date of he having attained majority which is around 11 years also weighed on the mind of the Court in the ligh
(1) Right to Equality – Very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law – It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law – No direction can ....
Compassionate appointment is an exception and not a matter of right, and should be considered within a specific time frame as per the prevailing policy at the time of consideration.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
Compassionate appointment is a privilege not a right, requiring timely application under applicable policy.
Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a legal right, and requires compliance with specific provisions while emphasizing immediate application to demonstrate need.
Point of Law : As more than 30 years have passed since the father of the petitioner/appellant had expired, neither there is any useful purpose to issue any positive direction, nor the facts of the ca....
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right and must adhere to the governing scheme, especially after an ex-gratia payment has been received.
Grant of compassionate appointment - Purpose of compassionate grounds appointments to tide over sudden crisis resulting from death of earner in a family. However reservation of a vacancy to enable su....
The compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme requires strict adherence to age and application timelines, negating claims based on delays beyond stipulated periods.
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
