Summary
The Court held that family pension and relevant benefits must be considered when the governing compassionate-appointment scheme requires assessment of the family’s financial position. Receipt of pension is a factor, not an automatic bar. Income ceilings validly clarify indigency and promote consistent decisions, though periodic review for inflation was expected. The respondent’s prolonged delay defeated the claim’s immediacy. The High Court’s contrary directions and reconsideration order were set aside and his writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether pension and benefits could be excluded contrary to the compassionate-appointment scheme.
- Whether Finance Department income ceilings impermissibly amended the policy.
- Whether prolonged delay warranted fresh consideration of the individual claim.
Held
- Compassionate appointment is an exception grounded in immediate financial need, not an independent right to public employment. A dependant is entitled to consideration only on the terms of the applicable scheme. This appeal addressed only benefit/income assessment and delay, not all nine issues decided by the High Court. (¶¶ 6, 20, 21, 23)
- The scheme required consideration of welfare benefits including family pension in evaluating indigency. Pension did not automatically disqualify an applicant, but the High Court could not order its exclusion contrary to the scheme. The precedents relied upon did not warrant disregarding these express requirements. (¶¶ 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)
- Income ceilings clarified the scheme’s indigency criterion and reduced arbitrary variation rather than improperly amending the policy. The appropriate amount remained for State policy; the State was expected to review it every three years or earlier in light of inflation, cost of living and relevant circumstances. (¶¶ 39, 43(iii))
- The respondent waited more than seven years after being required to include pension in the income statement before seeking writ relief. That lapse defeated the immediate-assistance purpose. The special policy allowance where all children were minors could not be extended by analogy to his different circumstances. Reconsideration would serve no useful purpose. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43(i))
Result
Appeal allowed in the stated terms: respondent’s writ petition dismissed; reconsideration direction and prohibition on considering pension and terminal benefits set aside. State’s power to set income limits confirmed, with periodic review expected every three years or earlier. No costs.