Authority Personally Responsible To Pay Damages For Unjustified Delay In Deciding Application For Compassionate Appointment: Karnataka High Court

Justice M. Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by one Hruthik N. whose application for compassionate appointment was rejected after two years and nine months, said,

"This Court in umpteen number of cases, has come across the authorities not considering the applications given seeking appointment on compassionate grounds immediately notwithstanding the need for appointment lying in its immediacy. Keeping the application pending for years or months will defeat the very object of framing the Rule for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. It is trite that a family which loses its breadwinner would be driven to impecuniosities or become condemned by penury. Therefore, the need for immediate consideration of such representations/applications for appointment on compassionate grounds is paramount."

The court then referred to Rule 5 and Rule 6 (2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The Rule 5, mandates that a dependent of a deceased Government Servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant. Sub-Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 6 mandates that in terms of the applications given the same shall be considered as far as possible within three months from the date of receipt of an application under Rule 5.

In this backdrop, Justice Nagaprasanna said,

"This has all along remained only on paper and is seldom implemented by the State, most conspicuously seldom in the cases that are brought before the Court. These very Rules bind the applicants to give an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within one year from the date of death. If Rule 5 is binding on an applicant, sub- Rule (2) of Rule 6 would become binding on the State as well. The adage "what sauce is good for the goose is good for the gander" in the circumstances is apposite."

Accordingly it opined,

"Therefore, the Rule that directs appointment shall be made as far as possible within a period of three months cannot but be held to be mandatory. Therefore, the authority empowered to consider applications for compassionate appointment shall consider and dispose the same within the mandate of sub- Rule (2) of Rule 6 i.e., three months from the date of receipt of the application. Any unreasoned or unjustifiable delay on the part of the Authority competent to consider would make such Authority personally responsible to pay damages to such applicant by way of wages that the applicant would be entitled to, if an appointment had been considered and granted."

The court also directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, the petitioner would be entitled to a monthly salary in the lowest post of Group- C till such consideration, to be paid by the authority competent to consider and pass orders as his personal responsibility.