Compassionate Appointment Offered To Dependant Of Deceased Employee Is A Concession, Not A Right: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground offered to the dependant of a deceased employee is a mere concession and not a right.

A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,

"The whole object behind granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession and not a right."

The petitioner in this case was the wife of an en employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd who passed away while in service due to a Road accident. Through the petition, the petitioner sought compassionate employment for her son under the Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A of the HPCL Employee's Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme, as per which she was entitled to the benefits as her deceased husband would have received had he superannuated.

The petitioner sought the benefits of the scheme in the year 2008, after her husband expired, however, the scheme was withdrawn and discontinued by the respondent corporation in the year 2004. The fact of the discontinuation of the scheme was duly intimated to the petitioner. Despite the communications, the petitioner sought to avail the benefits of the scheme.

Additionally, the petitioner was given an option to choose from the three Schemes of the Respondent Corporation when she first approached it after her husband expired and she, with her own will and volition, opted for the benefits under Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A of the Scheme. When she could not avail the benefits under the scheme, she approached the court

The petitioner relied on Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 192, where the Supreme Court had held that a provision for grant of compassionate employment was to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury.

Per contra, the respondent submitted that the petitioner had opted for Rule 7(b)(ii)/ 8A (100% benefit till employment is given) of the Scheme and was accordingly given an amount of Rs. 58,88,990/- (including EPF, Gratuity, Annuity, Pension GPAI etc). Further, as far as consideration of the case of the son of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was concerned, HPCL/ Respondent Corporation had withdrawn the scheme of providing appointment on compassionate grounds in August, 2004 itself. 

The court noted that the petitioner had, only after having opted for benefits under Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A of the Scheme, approached Respondent Corporation seeking compassionate employment for her son. It was found that after waiving the other options as given to her by the Respondent Corporation, she could not have sought to avail the benefit at a later stage.

The court opined that the object behind granting compassionate employment was to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. It further held that–

"The petitioner had availed the monetary benefits, under the scheme opted by her, to the tune of Rs. 58 lakhs. Having received such benefits, the family of the deceased service man would have survived and revived from the crisis that took upon them by surprise. After the effects of such crisis mitigated by the reason of her opting the scheme under Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A, the petitioner did not have the entitlement to approach under the Scheme of compassionate employment since the very purpose of the scheme was surpassed."

In light of the same, the petition was dismissed for being devoid of any merit.

CASE TITLE: MANJU DEVI v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707

Click Here To Read Order