1. Compassionate appointment — Application submitted under prevailing scheme — Delay in consideration — Rejection based on subsequent new scheme — Compensation awarded in lieu of employment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 1004
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S Oka, JJ.
The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, BSNL & Ors. –Appellants
Versus
Vidya Prasad - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S). 6019 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.16404 of 2018)
Decided On : 28-09-2021
Important Points
Administrative delay in processing a compassionate appointment application, resulting in the candidate's ineligibility under a new scheme or due to age, entitles the candidate to monetary compensation for the loss of a legitimate right to fair consideration and administrative inaction.
Subject
Employment Law - Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Headnote
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - DELAY IN CONSIDERATION - SCHEME OF 1998 - WEIGHTAGE POINT SYSTEM SCHEME - HIGH COURT JUDGMENT - COMPENSATION The court case involves a dispute over the denial of compassionate appointment to the respondent, whose father, a Telephone Mechanic, died while in service. The respondent had applied for compassionate appointment under the 1998 Scheme, which was applicable at the time of his father's death. However, his application remained pending until a new Scheme, the weightage point system Scheme, was introduced in 2007, and his application was subsequently rejected. The court observed that the delay in considering the application was due to the appellants' inaction. While the respondent had crossed the age of 50 by the time the matter reached the Division Bench of the High Court, the court found it appropriate to grant him compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the delay caused by the appellants. The High Court's judgment was modified accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appelant : Mr. R.D.Agrawala, Sr.Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, AOR Ms. Neelam, Adv. Mr. Sameer Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anil K. Chopra, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appelant : Mr. R.D.Agrawala, Sr.Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, AOR Ms. Neelam, Adv. Mr. Sameer Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anil K. Chopra, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether a pending application for compassionate appointment should be decided based on the scheme in vogue at the time of application or a subsequent new scheme. (Para 4 )
3. Delay in processing the application was attributable to the employer; applying a new restrictive scheme to a pending application is unfair when the applicant was previously eligible. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. An applicant eligible under a prevailing scheme cannot be denied compassionate appointment due to employer-induced delay and the subsequent application of a new, restrictive scheme. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. High Court order modified — Monetary compensation awarded to the respondent for delay in considering the application for compassionate appointment. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Can a new scheme be applied to a compassionate appointment application that was pending and eligible under a previous scheme?
No, if the delay in consideration is attributable to the employer, the applicant should not be deprived of the entitlement they held under the scheme in vogue at the time of application. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. What is the remedy when an applicant becomes ineligible for employment due to employer delay in processing a compassionate appointment request?
If the applicant has crossed the age limit for employment due to administrative delay, the court may award monetary compensation to prevent the applicant from being left in lurch. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 )
8. What are the consequences of administrative red tapism and inaction in granting compassionate appointments?
Inaction and red tapism that deny a legitimate right to fair consideration can lead to the imposition of costs on the employer to compensate the aggrieved dependent. (Para 9 , 11 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granting compensation to the respondent of Rs.10 lakhs in lieu of compassionate appointment which was arbitrarily denied to him by the Officers of the appellants.
3. The brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose are that the father of the sole respondent while working as a Telephone Mechanic died while in service on 07.02.2003. The respondent submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment on 15.10.2004 and formalities were completed by him as demanded by the Department on 03.07.2005. The Scheme which was applicable at the time of death of his father and also the date on which he submitted his application for compassionate appointment with all formalities being complied with was of year 1998 in vogue for seeking compassionate appointment.
4. It is not disputed by the appellants that in terms of the Scheme of 1998, the respondent was eligible in seeking compassionate appointment. The new Scheme (weightage point system Scheme) in supersession of the 1998 Scheme was introduced by the appellants on 27.06.2007 and immediately thereafter the candidature of the respondent was considered by the Committee constituted seeking compassionate appointment and after consideration the application was rejected pursuant to a communication dated 15.09.2007 and the reason for rejection of his application is referred as under :
Late Shri Ram Bux Ex.P/M TDM Etawah, expired on 07.02.2003 at the age of about 52 years and Eight month survived by his wife and two son including Shri Vidhya Prasad Widow Smt. Badala Devi is getting pension of Rs.3170/-per month and living in own house.
As per standing instructions dated 27.06.2007 BSNL HQ for offering compassionate ground appointment weightage point system has been provided in respect of items with positive points and negative points, (a) cases with 55 or more Net Points shall be prima facie treated as eligible for consideration by BSNL HQ High Power Committee for compassionate ground appointment and (b) cases with Net Points below 55 shall be treated as non indigent and rejected.
5. That came to be challenged by the respondent initially by filing an application before the Tribunal and further travelled to the Division Bench of the High Court and this is the ground reality that because of long pendency in Courts, attention could not be paid to decide the matters expeditiously and only because the delay being caused his legitimate right of fair consideration seeking compassionate appointment has been denied to him.
6. The Division Bench of the High Court under the impugned judgment observed that although he has a right of fair consideration in seeking compassionate appointment but by the time matter travelled to the Division Bench of High Court, he crossed the age of 50 years and it was considered not possible to permit him of seeking employment. Taking totality of the matter into consideration in lieu of employment granted him a lumpsum compensation of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.
7. We have heard counsel for the parties for quite some time and we are of the view that delay was admittedly attributable to the appellants in not putting heed to the application submitted for seeking compassionate appointment.
8. In the given case, either on the death of his father or on the date on which he submitted his application for compassionate appointment, the Scheme of 1998 was in vogue for seeking compassionate appointment, and as observed he was eligible under the Scheme 1998 but his application remained pending until the new Scheme was introduced on 27.06.2007 and thereafter rejected by a letter dated 15.09.2007.
9. The facts are conspicuous and manifest in that the delay in entertaining the application for fair consideration in seeking employment submitted by the respondent is indisputably attributable to the appellants and for the afore-stated reason, he
