Can State refuse Compassionate Appointment if Application is made after inordinate delay? YES says HC,

 

The Rajasthan High Court has held that State can refuse Compassionate Appointment if there is an inordinate delay in filing application.

The Bench comprising of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand and Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava while refusing challenge to a CAT order wherein it dismissed the plea of petitioner assailing denial of compassionate appointment on ground of prolonged delay, observed that precedents in regard to this suggest that Compassionate Appointment cannot be acquired after expiray of legitimate time period.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioners submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner No.2-deceased son, in 2003, but was denied appointment in 2005 by the respondents with reason that there is ban on direct recruitment on Group "C" and "D" posts. The respondents shut the case in 2006 completely citing that posts in Group "C" are not available.

There was no immediate or subsequent challenge to the above orders. However, after ten years, they started making representations to the concerned authorities, which was reconsidered by the respondents but their claim for compassionate appointment was again denied in 2016.

Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said 2016 order before CAT on the ground that the application was submitted by them well within time, but the same was rejected by the respondents. The Tribunal dismissed the original application on the ground that the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained at such a belated stage.

Therefore the present appeal.

Supreme Court Observation

The Court at the outset noted that it appears that the petitioners did not bother to challenge the orders dated 05/12.04.2005 and 13.06.2006 before any competent forum of law and they suddenly woke after ten years and started making representations to the concerned authorities. 

The Court referred to slew of precedents to held that CAT was justified in the order denying request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as there in an inordinate delay. It mentioned;

-Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh

Delay in pursuing claim/approaching court would mitigate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished.

The appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule. An appointment to public offices should be made on the basis of competetive merits. It was further observed that once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and the substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground, at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

-Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 Latest Caselaw 284 SC

Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exericsed at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

It is not for the courts to substitute a scheme or add or substract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review. 

-Smt. Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India & Ors.

All claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be not any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadearner in the family

The compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need.

The Court thus dismissed the appeal noting that it is not able to accept the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years.