Summary
The Court rejected a compassionate-appointment claim for an employee’s second son pursued eighteen years after the employee’s death, when the eldest son’s earlier rejection had become final. Compassionate appointment addresses immediate family hardship and is an exception to ordinary competitive recruitment. The prolonged delay defeated that object, and the Tribunal and High Court could not direct reconsideration without addressing it.
Issues
- Whether a fresh compassionate-appointment claim for a second son could succeed eighteen years after the employee’s death and final rejection of the earlier claim.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaCompassionate appointment is a limited exception to competitive public recruitment, justified by immediate hardship rather than an enduring hereditary entitlement. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.3, 6)
Held
- The eldest son’s 1977 rejection was never challenged and attained finality. The later claim for the second son was pursued only in 1996, after eighteen years, making delay and laches decisive on these facts. (¶¶ 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 5.1, 6)
- The object is immediate amelioration of hardship following the breadwinner’s death. A substantial lapse undermines that purpose and cannot justify displacement of the general merit-based recruitment rule. The High Court also failed to supply independent reasons addressing delay. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
Result
Employer’s appeal allowed. The High Court and Tribunal orders directing reconsideration were set aside; the second son was held not entitled to compassionate appointment on these facts. No costs.