Summary
Heirs of employees of three West Bengal municipalities who died in harness applied in 2005-06 for compassionate appointment; the Director of Local Bodies declined in 2015 for want of any State policy for urban local bodies, and the Calcutta High Court Division Bench directed consideration under Circulars 301 to 303-Emp of 2002. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals on two counts: no scheme governs compassionate appointment to posts under local authorities, since Circular 97-Emp read with the clarificatory Circular 142-Emp covers only State Government employees and the 2002 circulars speak of State 'Departments'; and directing consideration of claims made in 2005-06 nearly two decades later serves no purpose, because compassionate appointment rests on immediacy, is not a vested right, and the applicants slept for ten years before approaching the High Court.
Issues
- Whether any scheme of the State of West Bengal governs compassionate appointment to posts under municipalities, and whether Circulars 301, 302 and 303-Emp of 2002 continue to apply to local authorities.
- Whether a court may direct consideration of applications for compassionate appointment made in 2005-06 after a lapse of nearly two decades, where the applicants approached the High Court only in 2015.
Provisions considered
- Section 3 and Circulars 301, 302 and 303-Emp (2002), 97-Emp (2005) and 142-Emp (2007), West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in State Government Establishments and Establishments of Public Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local Authorities Act, 1999The 2002 circulars notified exempted categories, reserved thirty per cent of vacancies and prescribed a procedure referring to 'Departments'; 97-Emp laid down eligibility and the State departments where appointments would be made; 142-Emp clarified that 97-Emp covers only State Government employees and directed local authorities to frame their own policies. Read together, no policy existed for posts under local authorities, and a clarification relates back to the notification it explains. (¶¶ 16, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5)
- Articles 14, 16 and 226, Constitution of IndiaCompassionate appointment is an exception to recruitment on merit under Articles 14 and 16 justified only by immediate need; a writ court does not assist the indolent, unexplained delay disentitles discretionary relief, and a representation or a direction to consider a stale claim does not revive the cause of action. (¶¶ 7.1, 8, 9, 10)
Held
- From Sushma Gosain, Umesh Kumar Nagpal, Hakim Singh, Sajad Ahmed Mir and Shashi Kumar, compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment or a vested right but a means to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the breadwinner's death, to be decided with immediacy on the family's financial condition at the time of death; a claim cannot be entertained after a long lapse when the family has evidently survived, otherwise it becomes a matter of inheritance. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5)
- The applicants did nothing between 2005-06 and 2015 to pursue their applications; the delay is attributable to them as well as to the State, the sense of immediacy is lost, and they have admittedly eked out a living, so no direction to consider their claims is warranted. Malaya Nanda Sethy, where the applicant was blameless and the policy changed to his detriment, is distinguishable, though its direction that such applications be decided within six months is reiterated and the State's handling of hundreds of such claims is strongly reproached. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeals allowed; Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment dated 30.09.2019 set aside and the Single Judge's order dated 05.07.2018 dismissing the writ petitions restored; impleadment application allowed; parties to bear their own costs.