Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a claim for compassionate appointment made by the son of a deceased lineman of the Haryana State Electricity Board. The father died in harness on 24.8.1974, leaving a widow and minor children, including the respondent, who was then about four years old. About 14 years after the death, the widow applied for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds, relying on Board circulars dated 26.9.1985 and 1.10.1986. These circulars allowed consideration of one family member as a goodwill gesture, provided the request was made within one year of death, later extended to three years for widows with minor children. The Board rejected the request as time-barred. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, contending that he was a minor at his father's death and his mother could apply only after he attained majority. A learned Single Judge distinguished an earlier High Court decision in Sohan Lal v. HSEB, where the claimant waited five years after majority, and held that the three-year period should run from the date the minor became major. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Board to entertain the claim. The Division Bench dismissed the Board's appeal summarily but granted a further three months for compliance. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court observed that appointments to public service are normally made on merit through open invitation. Compassionate appointment is a limited exception designed to give succour to a family suddenly plunged into penury by the untimely death of its sole bread-winner. It is not an alternative mode of recruitment, nor does it create a vested right or a line of succession. The Court referred to its earlier decisions in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, and Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, which consistently held that the object is to provide immediate relief to tide over the sudden crisis and not to give a post, much less the post held by the deceased. The Court found that if the family could manage for fourteen years after the death, the claim could not be countenanced as if it were a right of inheritance. The High Court had erred in overstretching the scope of the compassionate relief by treating the time-limit as running from the date of majority. The Court held that the request was made far beyond the period indicated in the circular dated 1.10.1986 and must fail. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and held that the respondent, if interested in employment with the Board, must follow the normal recruitment route.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Scope and Object - No specific Act or Section; Board circulars dated 14.9.1983, 26.9.1985 and 1.10.1986 - Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of merit-based public employment and is intended only to give immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee facing sudden financial crisis; it is not an alternative mode of recruitment or a vested right - High Court erred in treating the provision as a continuing entitlement and directing the Board to consider a claim made 14 years after the employee's death - Held that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide relief to tide over sudden crisis, not to create a line of succession (Paras Not mentioned) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Time Limit for Claim - Board circular dated 1.10.1986 - A request for compassionate appointment must be made within the period specified in the applicable circular; a claim preferred long after the deceased employee's death cannot be countenanced as it would amount to another mode of recruitment dehors the recruitment rules - Widow applied for son's appointment about 14 years after father's death; Supreme Court set aside High Court direction and held that the respondent must take the normal recruitment route - Held that the High Court went wrong in giving a direction to the Board to consider the delayed claim (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a dependent of a deceased employee can claim compassionate appointment long after the prescribed time limit by treating the limitation period as starting from the date the minor dependent attains majority, and whether compassionate appointment is a vested right or an alternative mode of recruitment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and held that the respondent's request for compassionate appointment made far beyond the period indicated in the Board's circular dated 1.10.1986 was not maintainable. The respondent must follow the normal recruitment route for employment in the Board.
Law Points
- Public employment through merit and open invitation
- compassionate appointment is an exception to give immediate succour to bereaved family
- object is to tide over sudden financial crisis
- not an alternative mode of recruitment
- not a vested right or line of succession
- request must be made within prescribed time limit
- delayed claim beyond circular period cannot be countenanced
