Summary
The son of a Haryana Police constable who died on duty in 1997 reached majority eleven years later and claimed compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of that claim under the 1999 instructions, which required a minor dependant to attain majority within three years of the death. Because the State had kept the family's claim pending and never told the widow about a 2011 one-time option, the Court allowed her to apply for lump-sum ex-gratia compensation within a time limit.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, who attained majority eleven years after his father's death, was entitled to compassionate appointment despite the 1999 instructions requiring majority within three years of the death.
- Whether appointments given to others in similar cases entitled the appellant to the same benefit under Article 14.
- Whether the family of the deceased employee should be allowed to claim lump-sum ex-gratia compensation instead.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that equality under Article 14 is a positive concept and can only be invoked to enforce a claim that has the backing of law. A benefit conferred on others wrongly, or contrary to the scheme, gives no right to claim the same. Earlier appointments relied on had in any case been made before the 1999 instructions brought in the three-year limit. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11)
- Rule 8 (repeal and savings) and its first proviso, Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006The appellant's claim had been considered under the 2006 Rules. Their savings provision let families opt for the lump-sum ex-gratia grant under the 2003 or 2005 Rules instead of monthly assistance, and the earlier Rules required pending cases to be dealt with under them. The Court held that, since the employment claim stayed pending throughout, the right to have an ex-gratia claim considered also survived, at least for the widow. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Held
- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of open recruitment. It is not a vested right or a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness. It is given after strict scrutiny to rescue a family from sudden financial destitution, and only if the claimant meets the applicable policy, instructions or rules. Where no policy, instruction or rule provides for it, such an appointment cannot be made. (¶¶ 9, 12, 13, 14)
- Because the purpose is to give immediate relief to the family, the 1999 Haryana instructions are neither unjustified nor illogical. They allow a dependant three years from the employee's death to make a claim, including by attaining majority. The appellant attained majority eleven years after his father's death, so his claim was rightly rejected. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Article 14 cannot be used to compel the State to repeat an illegality or irregularity committed in favour of others. A wrongful benefit given to someone else does not entitle a similarly placed person to the same benefit, and the court will not direct the authority to repeat the illegality. (¶¶ 9, 11)
- The State kept the family's claim pending until 2009 and never told the widow about the Government's one-time decision of 16.03.2011 allowing old cases to opt for ex-gratia compensation. Her failure to opt was caused by that inaction. It was therefore just to give her one opportunity to seek lump-sum ex-gratia compensation. (¶¶ 17, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Result
Appeal disposed of. The rejection of compassionate appointment was upheld. The widow was permitted to apply for lump-sum ex-gratia compensation, to be decided within six weeks of receipt. If she is found entitled and the amount is not paid in time, it carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the representation. No order as to costs.