Summary
The claim to compassionate appointment failed because the replacement policy expressly covered pending cases and the applicant had declined its offered benefits, while waiting seven years to approach a court. Compassionate appointment is a scheme-based concession intended for immediate family relief, not an inherent employment right. The Court nevertheless directed payment of Rs.5 lakh solatium under the revised amount stated before it, instead of ordering employment.
Issues
- Whether the applicant could insist on appointment under the earlier policy despite its replacement and delayed litigation.
- What monetary relief should be directed in the circumstances.
Held
- Compassionate appointment departs from ordinary merit recruitment to address an immediate financial crisis. A pending application does not alone create an inherent right outside the governing scheme. (¶ 7–8)
- The seven-year delay in approaching court undermined the immediate-relief objective, notwithstanding intervening representations. The replacement policy expressly covered cases where employment had not been granted under the discontinued scheme. (¶ 10–11)
- The applicant had declined the offered solatium and temporary-post options. At this stage solatium was the available remedy; the Court directed the revised Rs.5 lakh amount stated before it. (¶¶ 4, 10, 12–13)
Result
Employer’s appeal allowed. Compassionate employment relief displaced by direction to pay the respondent Rs.5 lakh solatium within two months. Parties to bear their own costs.