Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal by the Union of India against the judgment of the Madras High Court which affirmed the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing reconsideration of the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment. The respondent, Amrita Sinha, is the widow of a Sargent in the Indian Air Force who died due to cancer on 6 January 2008, leaving behind her and two minor children. She applied for compassionate appointment, but her application was rejected on 17 February 2011. A subsequent application filed on 11 February 2014 was also rejected on 16 June 2015 on the ground that she did not secure sufficient merit points. The respondent received family pension of Rs 8,265 per month and terminal benefits of Rs 22,91,568. The merit points were assigned under various heads as per the Ministry of Defence's procedure. The respondent contended that she should have been awarded 16 merit points instead of 10 against the head of family pension because the pension would reduce to Rs 4,959 per month after ten years. The Tribunal quashed the rejection, holding that denial based on family pension was not justifiable as pension is for past service and the quantum would reduce. The High Court affirmed, terming the family pension as ad hoc income. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a scheme to tide over an immediate financial crisis. The family pension payable as on the date of consideration must be taken into account as per the scheme; the fact that it would reduce after a decade is irrelevant. The Tribunal's reasoning that pension is for past service was fallacious. The High Court's view that the payment was ad hoc was erroneous. Absent palpable arbitrariness, courts should not interfere with the authorities' evaluation. The appeals were allowed, and the original application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Family Pension Consideration - Scheme of Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government, OM dated 9.10.1998, OM dated 22.1.2010, OM dated 14.5.2010 - The Supreme Court held that family pension payable as on the date of consideration must be taken into account for awarding merit points; the fact that pension would reduce after ten years is irrelevant. The Tribunal and High Court erred in treating family pension as ad hoc or not justifiable. (Paras 10-13) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Purpose and Scope - Scheme of Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government - Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a scheme to enable the family to tide over an immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the employee while in service. The authorities must evaluate the financial position strictly within the parameters of the scheme. (Paras 10, 12) C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Judicial Review - Scheme of Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government - Absent palpable arbitrariness, courts should not interfere with the evaluation conducted by the authorities in terms of applicable guidelines. Grant of compassionate appointment would not be in accordance with the basic purpose of the scheme if the evaluation is correct. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the family pension payable to the widow of a deceased employee should be taken into account while awarding merit points for compassionate appointment under the Central Government Scheme.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 26 April 2018 set aside; OA No 310/01721/2015 filed by the respondent stands dismissed.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
- Family pension is a relevant factor in evaluating merit points
- Scheme for compassionate appointment must be strictly followed
- Courts cannot substitute their own assessment absent arbitrariness
