On 30th September 2022, the supreme court India in a divisional bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that the appointment of a person on compassionate grounds is a concession not a right. (Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. V. Anusree K.B.)
Facts of the case:
The father of the respondent was employed as a loading helper with the appellant no.1 and expired while on duty on 19.04.1995. At that time, the wife of the deceased employee was serving, therefore, was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. After 14 years, the respondent, daughter of the deceased employee, made a representation seeking appointment on compassionate basis but the application was rejected because her name was not in the list of dependents and policy was to give employment to widow or son or unmarried daughter of the deceased employee. The respondent filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge and the appellants were directed to reconsider the application in accordance with clause 1 of the scheme. But on 12.12.2019, again the application was rejected by the appellants on the grounds that deceased employee was not only the “sole bread winner of his family”, since his wife was employed with the Kerala State Health Services Department and 24 years have lapsed since the date of his death. On 13.11.2019, respondent again filed a Writ petition before the learned Single Judge HC who again directed the appellant to reconsider the respondent’s claim strictly in terms of the observations and directions passed in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11. 2019. As a result, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court which got dismissed giving rise to the present appeal.
Contentions of the appellants:
The counsel for the appellants submitted that when the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made by the respondent – daughter of the deceased employee after a period of 14 years from the death of the deceased employee, the Hon’ble High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. While relying on the cases, Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree and N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, he further submitted that the appointment on compassionate ground after a period of 24 years would be against its object and purpose that is to meet out the difficulties created on account of sudden death of the sole bread earner.
Contentions of the respondent:
The counsel for the respondent submitted that when the deceased employee died, the respondent was a minor and on attaining the age of majority, the respondent made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Initially when the application of the respondent for appointment was rejected, the same was not on the ground subsequently mentioned while passing the order dated 13.11.2019 namely delay. In 2018, the respondent was called for the interview, however, at that time, the appointment was denied on the ground that in the dependent’s list, the name of the respondent is not mentioned, which was found to be factually incorrect.
Observations and Judgement of the court:
The Hon’ble court while referring to the cases State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and 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. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The court observed that while considering the object of the appointment on compassionate ground, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.
The present appeal succeeds and the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High court were quashed and set aside by the hon’ble Supreme Court.
Case: (Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. V. Anusree K.B.)
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6958 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
Date: 30-09-2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :