Summary
The Supreme Court held that dependants who had sought and accepted compassionate appointment as sweepers could not, years later, claim appointment as Junior Assistants because they were qualified for that post. Once compassionate appointment is accepted, the right is consummated; the claim was also barred by delay and laches; and parity with others wrongly given the higher post is negative equality, which Article 14 does not recognise. The High Court's directions were set aside.
Issues
- Whether compassionate appointment is a matter of right.
- Whether a dependant who has accepted compassionate appointment on a post can later claim appointment on a higher post on the ground of eligibility for it.
- Whether the writ petitions were barred by delay and laches.
- Whether the respondents could claim parity with others who had been given the higher post (negative discrimination).
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaCompassionate appointment was treated as an exception to the rule of equal opportunity in public employment under these Articles. Article 14 does not envisage negative equality, so benefits wrongly granted to others cannot found a parity claim. (¶¶ 7.1, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaProlonged delay in approaching the High Court disentitles a claimant to discretionary writ relief, particularly in compassionate appointment cases where delay shows the family survived the crisis. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Held
- Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. It is a concession on humanitarian grounds and an exception to the general rule of appointment, meant to help the family of an employee dying in harness overcome sudden financial crisis. Mere eligibility of a dependant does not entitle him to appointment on any particular or higher post. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
- Once a dependant has been offered and has accepted compassionate appointment on the post applied for, the right to be considered is consummated and the purpose is served. A further claim for a higher post would amount to 'endless compassion' and is not maintainable (following State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh). (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 21)
- A dependant cannot claim compassionate appointment on a post higher than that held by the deceased merely because he meets the qualifications for it. Compassionate appointment cannot be used as a ladder to a higher post. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Delay in approaching the court is fatal to relief, more so in compassionate appointment matters: the sense of immediacy is lost, and delay indicates that the family could survive. The respondents approached the High Court years after joining the posts they had applied for. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 20, 22)
- A claim cannot rest on negative discrimination. A benefit wrongly conferred on similarly placed persons gives no right to others, and courts will not direct authorities to perpetuate an illegality. Ignorance of an alleged entitlement to the higher post is no excuse. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 24)
- It was unnecessary to examine the alleged anomalies in the Government Orders, since nothing in the outcome turned on them. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's judgment and review order set aside; the respondents' writ petitions dismissed; no order as to costs.