Family Members Of Deceased Govt Employee Can't Make Repeated Claims For Compassionate Appointment: Kerala High Court

“It cannot be construed that the scheme of compassionate appointment permits the members of the family to raise repeated claims for appointment. One must remember that the compassionate appointment is not a method of appointment and is only intended to get over the penury caused to the family of deceased”, stated Justice Easwaran S.

In the facts of the case, the petitioner is the son of the deceased R. Balachandran Pillai, a constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) who died in 2006.

In 2006, it was stated that an application was given by the wife nominating her daughter for a compassionate appointment. The daughter was offered an appointment which was not utilized and she also did not relinquish her claim for a compassionate appointment. In 2012, an application was given by the wife nominating her son for a compassionate appointment.

In 2014, the wife was stated to have requested to cancel the previous appointment given to the daughter and to grant a compassionate appointment to the son. The authorities denied this request and stated that the petitioner-son could not be considered for a compassionate appointment in 2016. Aggrieved by this order, a writ petition was filed in 2018.

The authorities filed a counter affidavit alleging that there was an unexplained delay in approaching the court against an order passed in 2016. They also contended that the daughter was given opportunities for compassionate appointments which were not utilized. 

The Court stated that there is an unexplained delay of 2 years in approaching the Court against the order dated 2016. It stated that there is no limitation period for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the Court can consider delay depending upon the facts of each case. It held that remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and thus relief could be declined based on unexplained delay.

Referring to Nadia Distt. Primary School Council v Sristidhar Biswas (2007), the Court stated that unexplained delay was a decisive factor in refusing to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. It said, “The unexplained delay when considered against the touchstone principles governing the compassionate appointment, certainly proves to be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Hence, this Court is constraint to hold that the delay in filing the writ petition is not explained and, hence, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its jurisdiction.”

It then went on to analyze the entitlement of the petitioner in seeking a compassionate appointment. The Court stated that the wife first nominated her daughter for appointment without waiting for her son to attain majority age. It also stated that the wife did not cancel the nomination given to the daughter and neither did the daughter relinquish her claim for compassionate appointment.

The Court clarified that offering a compassionate appointment to the son would contravene the basic principles governing compassionate appointment. It added that the father died in 2006 and after 18 years, the Court cannot direct the authorities to offer compassionate appointment to the son. 

“It may be true that when the eligibility of the legal heirs arose, petitioner not being qualified, the mother of the petitioner chose to exercise her right under the scheme of appointment and nominate her daughter for the compassionate appointment instead of the petitioner. If that be so, an offer which was made by the respondents being accepted by the mother by nominating her daughter for appointment and later the daughter not choosing to accept the said offer, but rather requesting the authorities to give appointment to her on a more convenient post, will definitely obliterate the claim of the petitioner seeking for compassionate appointment”, stated the Court.

Relying upon State of Gujarat Vs Aravind Kumar T Tiwari (2012), the Court stated that compassionate appointment should be strictly made as per rules and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

It thus stated that the non-acceptance of a compassionate appointment by daughter and reluctance to relinquish her claim would disentitle the son from claiming a compassionate appointment.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates T C Govinda Swamy, M Alfred Lionel Winston, Kala T Gopi

Counsel for Respondents: Central Government Counsel T V Vinu, Standing Counsel S Chandrasenan

Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 251

Case Title: B Anandan v Union of India

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 2392 OF 2018

Click here to read/download Judgment