Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others against the judgment of the High Court which had dismissed their second appeal. The respondent, Nirval Singh, sought compassionate appointment after his father's death on 17.05.2004. At the time of his application, the policy dated 21.11.2002 was in force, but its implementation was kept in abeyance pending a new policy. The new policy came into effect on 23.11.2004, offering a solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs or a temporary post. The respondent declined both options. He approached the court for the first time in 2011, seven years after the death. The writ petition was disposed of directing consideration of his application, which was rejected. A second writ petition was filed, and the respondent was relegated to a civil suit. The civil suit was dismissed, but the first appeal was allowed, and the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that there is no inherent right to compassionate appointment; it is a concession governed by the policy in force. The delay of seven years defeated the purpose of immediate relief. The new policy specifically covered pending cases, and the respondent had been offered benefits under it, which he declined. The Court directed payment of the revised solatium of Rs. 5 lakhs within two months, allowing the appeal and leaving parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - No Inherent Right - Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of merit-based recruitment and is governed solely by the employer's scheme in force at the time of consideration; there is no right outside such scheme. (Paras 2-3)
B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Change of Policy - When a new policy replaces an old one and specifically provides that pending applications will be considered under the new scheme, the new scheme alone applies. (Para 3)
C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay - The objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family; a delay of 7 years in approaching the court extinguishes that objective. (Para 3)
D) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Solatium - Where the new policy offers solatium in lieu of employment, and the claimant declines, the court may direct payment of the revised solatium amount in the interest of justice. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent is entitled to compassionate appointment under the old policy or only to benefits under the new policy, and whether the delay in approaching the court disentitles him to relief.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 5 lakhs (revised solatium) to the respondent within two months. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment
- no inherent right to compassionate appointment
- appointment must be in accordance with existing policy
- delay in approaching court extinguishes objective of immediate amelioration
- new policy applies to pending applications if it specifically provides so
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 4660/2019 (@ SLP (C) No. 24214 of 2018)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Indira Banerjee
For Appellant(s): Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv., Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Akshay Verma, AOR, Mr. Akashdeep Verma, Adv., Mrs. Sushma Verma, Adv.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against dismissal of second appeal in a suit for compassionate appointment.
Remedy Sought
The respondent sought compassionate appointment on account of his father's death.
Filing Reason
The respondent's father died on 17.05.2004 while working with the appellants; the respondent applied for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 21.11.2002.
Previous Decisions
The civil suit was initially dismissed; the first appeal was allowed; the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
Issues
Whether the respondent has a right to compassionate appointment under the old policy despite the new policy coming into force?
Whether the delay of 7 years in approaching the court disentitles the respondent to relief?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the old policy was kept in abeyance and a new policy came into effect on 23.11.2004; the respondent was offered solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs or a temporary post, which he declined.
Respondent argued that his application was made under the old policy and he should be considered under that policy.
Ratio Decidendi
Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right; it must be in accordance with the policy in force at the time of consideration. Delay in approaching the court defeats the objective of immediate relief. Where a new policy replaces an old one and specifically covers pending applications, the new policy applies. The claimant is entitled only to the benefits under the new policy, such as solatium.
Judgment Excerpts
The fundamental principle which has to be kept in mind is that there is no inherent right to obtain a compassionate appointment and such compassionate appointment has to be in accordance with the existing policy as the objective is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant stage of time and it is the deviation from the rule of merit.
In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of the respondent. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished.
The solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs was offered immediately on 19th September, 2004. We are informed that as per the current policy the solatium has been revised to Rs. 5 lakhs. That being the position and the respondent having been deprived of the benefit of the amount, albeit by his own conduct, the interest of justice would be served by directing that the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs be paid to the respondent within two months from today.
Procedural History
The respondent's father died on 17.05.2004. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment under the 2002 policy. The policy was kept in abeyance; new policy came on 23.11.2004. The respondent was offered solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs or temporary post, which he declined. He filed a writ petition in 2011, disposed of on 12.03.2012 directing consideration. The application was rejected. He filed a second writ petition, relegated to civil suit. The civil suit was dismissed; first appeal allowed; second appeal dismissed by High Court. The appellants appealed to Supreme Court.
