Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Government of India against the judgment of the Madras High Court, which had directed the grant of compassionate appointment to the respondent, P. Venkatesh. The respondent's father, an employee of the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, died on 25 May 1996. The widow's representation for compassionate appointment was rejected on 3 January 1997. A subsequent representation was also rejected in July 1999. In 2007, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed reconsideration, leading to a speaking order rejecting the claim on 13 November 2007. Further OAs were filed, resulting in similar directions for reconsideration, but each time the claim was rejected. The Tribunal finally dismissed the OA on 30 April 2013, holding that the claimant was not eligible under the scheme as the maximum period for keeping a name for consideration was three years. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and issued a mandamus for appointment. The Supreme Court held that the essence of compassionate appointment lies in the immediacy of the need. The first recourse to the Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death, and by the time of the High Court's order, twenty-one years had elapsed. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period, and the claim was stale. The Court criticized the practice of passing 'dispose of the representation' orders, which lead to further delays and do not serve justice. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Tribunal's order dismissing the OA was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay - The claim for compassionate appointment must be made with immediacy to tide over the crisis caused by the death of the employee in harness. A delay of over a decade in approaching the Tribunal renders the claim stale and defeats the very purpose of the scheme. Successive orders for reconsideration cannot revive a stale claim. (Paras 3-5) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Object - The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to overcome the sudden financial crisis, not to provide a vested right that can be exercised at any time. Mere death of an employee does not entitle the family to such employment; financial condition must be examined. (Para 4) C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - 'Dispose of the representation' orders - Courts and Tribunals should avoid passing mechanical orders directing reconsideration of representations without examining the merits, as it leads to further litigation and delays. Such practice does not serve the cause of justice. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be granted after a delay of over a decade from the date of death of the employee, and whether the High Court was justified in issuing a mandamus for such appointment.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court set aside; judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application affirmed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by death of employee in harness
- essence lies in immediacy of need
- claim cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period
- successive orders for reconsideration cannot obliterate effect of initial delay
- 'dispose of the representation' mantra does not serve justice
