Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tinku, is the son of Jai Prakash, a constable in Haryana Police who died in harness on 22.11.1997. At the time of his father's death, the appellant was seven years old. The applicable policy at that time was dated 08.05.1995, which provided for ex-gratia appointment to Class III and IV posts. The widow of another constable who died in the same incident was granted compassionate appointment. The appellant's mother, being illiterate, applied for compassionate appointment for her son. A letter from the Director General of Police (DGP) dated 15.04.1998 directed the appellant's name to be entered in the Minor's Register No. 47, indicating an intention to reserve a post for him. A further communication dated 30.12.2003 from the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, informed the mother that the appellant should approach the Welfare Inspector on attaining majority. The appellant attained majority on 10.10.2008 and submitted a representation for compassionate appointment. However, by communication dated 28.04.2009, the DGP rejected the claim on the ground that 11 years had passed since the father's death, rendering the claim time-barred under the Government instructions dated 22.03.1999, which required a minor dependent to attain majority within three years of the employee's death. The claim was also considered under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, which did not provide for ex-gratia appointment. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court in 2009, arguing promissory estoppel based on the earlier communications. The writ was dismissed on 12.01.2021, and the intra-court appeal was dismissed on 22.03.2022. The Supreme Court upheld the rejection, holding that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be granted strictly in accordance with the policy. The delay of 11 years in attaining majority was fatal to the claim. The Court also rejected the argument of negative equality under Article 14, stating that any illegal or irregular benefit granted to others does not confer a right on the appellant. The Court further noted that the claim for ex-gratia financial assistance was not pressed and was not part of the relief sought. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Compassionate Appointment - Nature and Purpose - Not a Vested Right - Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment requiring advertisement and selection; it is intended to provide immediate succour to a family facing financial destitution due to the death of the sole bread earner. It is not a condition of service or a vested right, and must be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable policy, instructions, or rules. (Paras 12-15) B) Compassionate Appointment - Limitation Period - Time-Barred Claim - Where a minor dependent attains majority more than three years after the death of the government employee, the claim for compassionate appointment is time-barred under the Haryana Government instructions dated 22.03.1999, which require attainment of majority within three years from the date of death. A delay of 11 years in the present case renders the claim unsustainable. (Paras 4, 15-16) C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Negative Equality - No Right to Perpetuate Illegality - The principle of equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim a benefit that has been granted illegally or irregularly to others. If some wrong benefit has been conferred contrary to the scheme, it does not bestow a right upon others to claim it as a right of equality. The court will not compel the authority to repeat an illegality. (Paras 9-11) D) Promissory Estoppel - Applicability - Mere Communication Not Constituting Promise - Communications regarding entry of name in the Minor's Register and advising the appellant to approach on attaining majority do not amount to a promise or representation that compassionate appointment would be granted irrespective of the time limit. The principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable in the absence of a clear and unequivocal promise. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to compassionate appointment on the basis of communications made when he was a minor, despite the delay of 11 years in attaining majority after the death of his father, and whether the principle of promissory estoppel or equality under Article 14 can be invoked to grant such appointment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the High Court. The Court held that the claim for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected as time-barred, and that the principles of promissory estoppel and negative equality under Article 14 were not applicable. The Court also noted that the claim for ex-gratia financial assistance was not pressed and was not part of the relief sought.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
- it is an exception to the general rule of appointment requiring advertisement and selection
- Claim for compassionate appointment must be made within a reasonable time
- Delay of 11 years in attaining majority after death of employee renders claim time-barred
- Equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim benefit of illegal or irregular appointments made in favour of others
- Negative equality cannot be claimed to perpetuate illegality
- Policy instructions limiting time for compassionate appointment are valid and not unjustified
