Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered two special leave petitions against a Division Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 18-12-1992 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 734 of 1992 and CWP No. 6357 of 1992. The dispute concerned the principles governing compassionate appointment in public services. The High Court had observed that the State Government's instructions did not justify compassionate employment in Class II posts, but also stated that extraordinary situations could warrant deviation and recommended framing a policy for Class I/II appointments. The State Government had at least once provided compassionate employment in a Class II post based on technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B.Tech. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the special leave petitions at the admission stage, reiterated that appointments in public services must ordinarily be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Compassionate appointment is a limited exception for dependants of an employee who dies in harness and leaves his family in penury. The object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis, not to provide a post or post-for-post held by the deceased. The public authority must examine the financial condition of the family; only if it is satisfied that but for provision of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis should a job be offered. Only Class III and IV posts, being the lowest non-manual and manual posts, can be offered on compassionate grounds. This exception has a rational nexus with relief against destitution and is not discriminatory. The Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted in posts above Class III and IV. The only relevant ground is the penurious condition of the deceased's family; neither the qualifications of the dependent nor the post held by the deceased is relevant. The Court disapproved the High Court's observations that the Government could deviate from policy in rare cases and recommend appointments to Class I or II posts. If a dependent finds the offered post below his dignity, he is free not to accept; the post is not offered to cater to his status. The Court further held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed after a lapse of a reasonable period, which must be specified in the rules. The consideration is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in future. Once the financial crisis is over, the claim cannot be made. The Court also emphasised that provisions for compassionate employment must be made by rules or executive instructions issued by the Government or public authority concerned, and cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis. The Court noted that Sushma Gosain v. Union of India had been misinterpreted and does not justify compassionate employment as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. Consequently, the special leave petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Exception to General Rule - Not mentioned - Appointments in public services must be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit; compassionate appointment for dependants of deceased employee in penury is only exception to relieve financial destitution. The object is to enable family to tide over sudden crisis, not to give post or post for post; only Classes III and IV posts can be offered after examining financial condition; favorable treatment has rational nexus with relief against destitution. Held that compassionate employment cannot be as a matter of course nor in posts above Classes III and IV (Paras 2-3). B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility and Post - Not mentioned - The only ground justifying compassionate employment is penurious condition of deceased's family; neither qualifications of dependent nor post held by deceased is relevant; High Court's observation permitting Class I/II posts in rare cases is contrary to law; a dependent finding post below dignity may not accept; post not to cater status but to see family through economic calamity; Sushma Gosain v. Union of India does not justify such appointments. Held such exceptions illegal (Paras 4-5). C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Vested Right - Not mentioned - Compassionate employment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules; consideration is not a vested right exercisable at any future time; object is to enable family to get over financial crisis at death of sole breadwinner; after crisis over claim cannot be made. Held delayed claims impermissible (Para 6). D) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Source of Authority - Not mentioned - Provisions for compassionate employment must be made by rules or executive instructions issued by Government or public authority concerned; employment cannot be offered by individual functionary on an ad hoc basis. Held ad hoc compassionate appointment invalid (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
The considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground, including permissible posts, financial condition, delay, and source of authority.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions. Compassionate appointment is permissible only in Class III and IV posts, only on ground of penurious condition of deceased employee's family, cannot be claimed after lapse of reasonable period, and only under rules or executive instructions.
Law Points
- Appointments in public services should be made strictly on basis of open invitation and merit
- Compassionate appointment is exception for dependants of deceased employee in penury
- Only Class III and IV posts can be offered on compassionate grounds
- Financial condition of family must be examined
- Qualifications of dependent and post held by deceased irrelevant
- Compassionate appointment not vested right and cannot be claimed after reasonable period
- Provisions must be made by rules or executive instructions not ad hoc
- Sushma Gosain v. Union of India misinterpreted
