Travesty of Justice to Deny Compassionate Appointment to Those Who Fought for the Scheme Based on a Cut-off Date: Kerala High Court - 2025-07-13

Travesty of Justice to Deny Benefit to Those Who Fought for It: Kerala HC on Compassionate Appointment

Ernakulam, Kerala - In a significant ruling on service law, the Kerala High Court has held that denying compassionate employment to individuals who were instrumental in the very creation of the appointment scheme, based on a subsequently introduced cut-off date, would be a "travesty of justice."

The Court directed the management of an aided college to grant employment to the children of two deceased employees, whose persistent legal battles led to the framing of the Compassionate Employment Scheme for private aided college staff in the first place.

A Decade-Long Struggle for a Livelihood

The case was brought by two petitioners whose fathers had passed away in 2008 and 2010 while serving as non-teaching staff at colleges run by the Nair Service Society (NSS). At the time of their deaths, no scheme for compassionate appointment existed for employees of private aided colleges.

The petitioners, along with others, initiated a long legal fight. A series of writ petitions, starting from as early as 2004, eventually led to a High Court directive compelling the State Government to frame a policy. Consequently, the government issued an order on February 17, 2020, establishing the Compassionate Employment Scheme. However, the scheme was made applicable only to dependents of employees who died on or after October 7, 2013, effectively excluding the very individuals whose efforts brought it into existence.

Arguments Before the Court

The petitioners argued that the management's refusal to appoint them was arbitrary, especially since the State Government, following an earlier High Court order (Ext.P11), had considered their unique situation and issued a specific sanction (Ext.P12) to appoint them by waiving the cut-off date.

The respondent management vehemently opposed the plea, contending that any appointment must strictly adhere to the scheme's terms. They argued that the scheme was prospective, applying only from the 2013 cut-off date. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the management asserted that courts cannot direct appointments that contravene the established policy, as it would amount to rewriting the scheme. They also argued that granting an exception for the petitioners would perpetuate an illegality.

The State Government, however, supported the petitioners. It confirmed that it had issued orders directing the management to appoint the petitioners and that the 2013 cut-off date did not prohibit the management from providing assistance to dependents of employees who died prior to it.

Court’s Decisive Intervention

The High Court acknowledged the general principle that appointments must follow the scheme. However, it carved out an exception based on the unique and compelling facts of this case. The Court emphasized that the petitioners were not passive beneficiaries but active litigants who had fought for years to establish the scheme.

In a previous judgment (Ext.P11) concerning the same petitioners, the Court had observed:

"...it must be borne in mind that these are the persons who had been fighting all this while for getting the benefits under the Scheme. They were earlier denied appointments solely saying that the Scheme had not been put into operation, but when it was done – which ironically, was at the instance of the petitioner... they have been denied the benefits thereunder solely because the aforementioned cut-off has been implemented."

Following this, the Government itself had issued an order (Ext.P12) sanctioning the appointments. The Court noted that the government, as the framer of the scheme, had the authority to make such an exception.

Final Verdict: Justice Prevails

Concluding that the petitioners' claim could not be defeated by a technicality they helped overcome, the Court held:

"The Government or the 3rd respondent cannot defeat the claim for compassionate employment of those dependents who have been fighting for their claim, by fixing a cut off date while framing the Scheme. In the circumstances of the case, it would be a travesty of justice if compassionate employment is denied to the petitioners on the basis of a subsequent cut off date prescribed in the Scheme."

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the NSS management to implement the government's sanction order and grant employment to the petitioners within two months. This judgment underscores the equitable power of the court to prevent injustice and ensures that the spirit of compassionate employment is not defeated by rigid procedural hurdles.