Compassionate Appointment Is Not A Vested Right : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be granted without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection.

The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is always subject to proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih was deciding the appeal filed by a man whose claim for compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father, a police constable, was denied. The petitioner's father died when he was 7 years old in 1997 and applied for compassionate appointment in 2008 after attaining majority. However, the Haryana Government rejected the claim citing the 1999 policy which introduced a three-year limit after an employee's death.

The Supreme Court found nothing wrong with the Government's policy, saying that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family.

The judgment authored by Justice Masih observed :

"As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment."

The Court explained that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule.

"The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family. When seen in this conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right."

Though the petitioner's claim for appointment was denied, the Court allowed his mother to submit a representation to the competent authority for a lump-sum ex-gratia payment.  

The Court ordered that the request be considered within six weeks.

Also from the judgment-   Article 14 Can't Be Invoked To Repeat Illegality Committed In Favour Of Someone : Supreme Court

Case : Tinku v State of Haryana

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 886

Click here to read the judgment