1. Petitions challenging a High Court decision regarding the criteria and eligibility for compassionate appointments in public services following the death of an employee in harness. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 516
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 10504 of 1993
UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
With
SLP (C) No. 2385 of 1994
ANIL MALIK
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
SLP (C) No. 10504 of 1993 with SLP (C) No. 2385 of 1994, decided on May 4, 1994
Advocates appeared
Amarendra Sharan, Advocate, for the Petitioner;
Indu Malhotra, Advocate, for the Respondents.
Important Points
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to merit-based hiring, intended solely to relieve the family of a deceased employee from financial destitution. Such appointments are limited to Class III and IV posts, based on the family's penury rather than the deceased's rank or the dependant's qualifications, and must be timely.
Subject
Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment
Headnote
Constitution of India, Art 311-appointment on compassionate ground is one of exception to the general rule in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies-the whole object is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis-class III & IV are lowest posts in non manual and manual categories and hence they can alone be offered on compassionate ground-provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory-justification made and direction issued in the judgments of some High Courts do not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above class III & IV-it can not be granted after lapse of reasonable-tie-(1989) 4 SLR 227 explained and clarified.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
AMARENDRA SARAN, Indu Malhotra
AMARENDRA SARAN, Indu Malhotra
Table of Contents
2. Whether compassionate appointments can be granted as a matter of course, based on technical qualifications, or in posts above Class III and IV. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Compassionate appointments are exceptions to merit-based hiring, intended solely to relieve financial destitution in Class III and IV posts, regardless of the deceased's rank or dependant's qualifications. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. Compassionate appointment is a relief against destitution limited to Class III and IV posts, contingent on financial penury, and not a vested right or status-based entitlement. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
5. Special leave petitions dismissed. (Para 8 )
6. What is the primary objective of compassionate appointments in public services?
The objective is to enable the family of an employee who died in harness to tide over a sudden financial crisis and relieve them of financial destitution. (Para 2 )
7. Can compassionate appointments be made to posts above Class III and IV?
No. Such appointments are legally impermissible as the purpose is to relieve destitution, not to maintain status or provide a post-for-post replacement regardless of the deceased's rank or the dependant's qualifications. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
8. Does the death of an employee in harness automatically entitle the family to compassionate employment?
No. The government or public authority must examine the financial condition of the family and be satisfied that the family cannot meet the crisis without such employment. (Para 2 )
9. Is compassionate appointment a vested right that can be claimed at any time?
No. It is not a vested right and cannot be granted after a reasonable period specified in the rules, as the relief is intended for the immediate crisis following the death. (Para 6 )
10. How should the provision for compassionate employment be established?
Provisions for compassionate employment must be made through formal rules or executive instructions issued by the government or public authority, rather than ad hoc offers by individual functionaries. (Para 7 )
Judgment
SAWANT, J.- These two petitions are directed against the decision dated 18-12-1992 of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 734 of 1992 and CWP No. 6357 of 1992. Since they raise a point of considerable importance, it has become necessary to deliver a short judgment while dismissing them at the admission stage.
2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideia.ion of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.
3. Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible.
4. It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of this Court in Su
