Summary
A loading helper at a public sector fertilizer company died in service in 1995. His widow, employed with the State health services, was not eligible under the company's dependant-employment scheme. About 14 years later, the daughter, a minor in 1995 and married since 2013, sought compassionate appointment. Her application was rejected, including on reconsideration, on the grounds that the deceased was not the sole breadwinner and that 24 years had passed. The Kerala High Court directed her case to be considered again. The Supreme Court reversed. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the Article 14 and 16 rule, a concession and not a right, and is meant to help a family survive the immediate crisis caused by an employee's sudden death. Appointing someone 14 to 24 years later would defeat that purpose.
Issues
- Whether the daughter of an employee who died in 1995 could claim compassionate appointment on an application made about 14 years later, when her mother was in government service at the time of death.
- Whether the High Court was right to direct the employer to reconsider the claim more than two decades after the death.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaPublic employment must ordinarily be open to all on merit. Compassionate appointment is a narrow, policy-bound exception to relieve a family's immediate destitution and cannot be stretched to claims made long after the death. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 9.1)
Held
- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule, and no aspirant has a right to it. It depends on the employer's policy and eligibility norms, judged as they stand when the claim is considered (V. Somyashree, N.C. Santhosh). (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The object is to enable a family left in penury by an employee's death in harness to tide over the sudden crisis, not to provide a post (Umesh Kumar Nagpal, Shashi Kumar). (¶¶ 8.1, 9)
- The widow was in government service when the employee died, the daughter applied about 14 years later, and over 24 years had passed by the time of the High Court's orders. Granting appointment then would defeat the purpose of the scheme, and the High Court erred in directing reconsideration. (¶¶ 6, 9.1, 9.2)
Result
Appeal allowed. The judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court directing reconsideration of the respondent's claim to compassionate appointment were set aside. No costs.