Summary
The son of an Excise Department Assistant Sub-Inspector who died in service on 02.01.2010 applied in July 2010 for compassionate appointment as Junior Clerk under the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, his mother being medically unfit for a government job. The application lay unattended for five years; reports in 2016–2017 confirmed the mother's unfitness and the family's low income, yet no order was passed before the 2020 Rules, which confine such appointments to Group D posts, replaced the 1990 Rules. The Orissa High Court, following N.C. Santosh, held the 2020 Rules governed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal: leaving open the conflict over which scheme applies, the appellant, in no way at fault, could not be made to suffer for the department's callous delay and must be considered under the 1990 Rules; such applications must be decided within six months.
Issues
- Whether an application for compassionate appointment that fulfilled every condition of the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 but was kept pending for a decade through the department's inaction can be relegated to the less favourable Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 which replaced them during the pendency.
- Within what time authorities must decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Provisions considered
- Rule 2(b) ('family members' in order of preference: wife/husband, sons ...) and appointment to the post of Junior Clerk, Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990The 1990 Rules contained no bar on a son applying while the widow was alive; with the mother medically unfit the son was entitled to apply and satisfied every eligibility condition, as the Medical Board and Tehsildar reports confirmed. He was directed to be considered under these Rules on his original application of July 2010. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- Appointment limited to Group D base-level posts; applicability to pending applications, Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020Although the 2020 Rules replaced the 1990 Rules on 17.02.2020 and purport to govern pending applications, and the High Court applied them following N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, the Court kept the larger question open and held that in the peculiar facts the appellant could not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 4, 4.1, 5, 7)
Held
- There is a conflict of views in the decisions of this Court on whether the scheme in force on the date of the employee's death or that in force on the date of consideration governs a compassionate appointment claim (Indian Bank v. Promila, Amit Shrivas, Ashish Awasthi, Vidya Prasad and Bheemesh on one side; the three-Judge decision in N.C. Santosh on the other); that question is kept aside and left open. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 4, 5, 7)
- The appellant applied immediately in July 2010, was eligible under the 1990 Rules and fulfilled every condition, yet his application was kept pending for five years and then, despite favourable medical and income reports, left undecided until the Rules were replaced. There was no fault, delay or negligence on his part and absolute callousness on the part of the authorities; denying him appointment under the 1990 Rules would put a premium on the department's inaction, of which he has become the victim. In these peculiar facts he shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Given that the object of compassionate appointment is immediacy of financial assistance to the family of an employee dying in harness, authorities must consider and decide such applications under the prevalent policy at the earliest and not beyond six months from submission of a completed application; the consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant considerations, not frivolous or extraneous grounds. Applications kept pending for years, sometimes for two decades, and rejected after mandamus on vexatious grounds, frustrate the very policy. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Orissa High Court judgment of 26.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 28023 of 2021 quashed; the respondents directed to consider the appellant for compassionate appointment as Junior Clerk under the 1990 Rules on his July 2010 application and, if otherwise eligible, appoint him within four weeks, with benefits only from the date of appointment. No order as to costs.