Case Note & Summary
The case involved a dispute regarding the appointment of an individual on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, a government employee. The respondent was appointed as a clerk under the die-in-harness scheme on 12.9.1997, after his father's death on 21.12.1996. However, the appointment was later nullified by the State on the grounds that the respondent's mother was also in government service, which violated the policy established on 22.8.1996. The respondent challenged this decision in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which ruled in his favor, stating that he had worked for four years without any fraud or misrepresentation. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's ruling was erroneous as the appointment was made contrary to the policy. The Supreme Court found that the appointment was indeed not permissible under the policy and that the High Court had misinterpreted the circumstances. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions to general recruitment rules and cannot be claimed as a right. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment but acknowledged the respondent's four years of service, allowing him to apply for government jobs within two years without age restrictions. The appeal was allowed with costs made easy.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment - Legality of Appointment - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 16 - The appointment of the respondent was made in violation of the policy regarding compassionate appointments, which stipulates that dependants of deceased employees cannot be appointed if one parent is alive and in government service. The High Court's decision to uphold the appointment was found to be erroneous, leading to the Supreme Court's ruling to set aside the High Court's judgment. Held that the appointment was not permissible under the existing policy (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds was justified under the applicable policy.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the appointment was not permissible under the policy. The Court allowed the respondent to apply for government jobs within two years without age restrictions.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- die-in-harness scheme
- legal right
- policy compliance
- Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
