SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Nirmala Meher - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
LPA 68 of 2021
Decided On : 15-02-2021




Compassionate appointment lacks entitlement; eligibility hinges on defined criteria and discretionary nature of policies.

Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment Scheme - Relevant eligibility criteria as per the datelines set in the scheme - The Appellant’s application for compassionate appointment rejected on grounds of not meeting the scheme criteria laid out in the notification dated 4th August 2011, which states that appointments can only be granted under exceptional circumstances such as employee death due to violence or within a specified service period (Paras 2, 3, 4, 10, 12).

(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review in administrative matters is limited; the court will only interfere if the criteria set by the employer is arbitrary or irrational, which has been affirmed (Paras 12).

(C) Employment Rights - It is established that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a right but a concession under the relevant policy, thus, dependents have no vested interest outside the defined criteria (Paras 10, 12).

Facts of the case:
The Appellant, widow of a deceased employee of Respondent No. 3, sought compassionate appointment following her husband's death after over 15 years of service. Her request was denied based on the established policy requiring her husband's death to occur under specific qualifying circumstances (Paras 1-4).

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the decision of the lower court, affirming that the eligibility criteria were valid and should be strictly adhered to, thus, the Appellant was only eligible for an ex-gratia payment (Paras 12-13).

Issues: Whether the Appellant’s appeal for compassionate appointment should be granted considering the policies in place governing such appointments and the specific circumstances of her husband’s death (Paras 5, 11).

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the compassionate appointment scheme is discretionary and based on specific eligibility criteria, not a matter of right, reinforcing that financial distress alone does not confer entitlement under the scheme (Paras 12, 13).

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. compassionate appointment criteria and the appellant's case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding the policy on compassionate appointment (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's examination of the existing compassionate appointment scheme (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. dismissal of the appeal by the court (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

Brief Background

1. The Appellant, widow of a deceased employee, is aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 2020 [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"] whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected her writ petition [being W.P.(C.) No. 2807/2017] impugning the letter dated 2nd April, 2015 issued by the employer, State Bank of India [hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent No. 3"] declining her appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the Appellant is that her husband expired on 17th July, 2014, whilst he was in the service of Respondent No. 3. As on the date of death, the deceased had rendered services for a period of 15 years and 6 months and was aged 34 years, 1 month and 27 days. He is survived by the Appellant herein, mother and two minor daughters aged 8 years and 2 years. The financial condition of the deceased's family was distressing, and the same deteriorated further after his passing, as the deceased was the sole bread-earner for the family. The destitution and penury compelled the Appellant to seek compassionate appointment with Respondent No. 3. An application dated 3rd November, 2014 was filed in this regard, followed by several representations and reminders, but to no avail. Ultimately, the Competent Authority informed the Appellant vide communication dated 25th March, 2015, that her request for compassionate appointment had been declined, and that she could apply for ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of the appointment on compassionate grounds, within nine months from the date of death of the employee as per the extant instructions of Respondent No. 3.

3. Thereafter, vide letter dated 2nd April, 2015, in reply to the Appellant's letter dated 30th March, 2015, Respondent No. 3 informed the Appellant that her case was examined as per the prevalent scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, and it was observed that as the total length of service of the deceased was 15 years and 6 months and he was of the age of 34 years 1 month and 27 days, her case did not fall under any of the eligibility criteria for appointment on compassionate grounds, which envisaged two exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances are highlighted in the said communication dated 2nd April, 2015, and read as under-

    "(i) Employee dying while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity. OR

    (ii) Employee dying within 05 years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children."

It was further reiterated that the Appellant may avail the scheme of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. Aggrieved with the rejection, the Appellant also made a representation to the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, the same was turned down. In this background, the Appellant approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) 2807/2017 and sought the following reliefs-

    "(A) issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the policy adopted by the Respondent no. 3 in the matter of appointment on compassionate grounds;

    (B) issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.04.2015 of the respondent no. 3 whereby the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected;

    (C) issue a writ of mandamus thereby restoring the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the law;

    (D) award t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top