Pinnacle Court Appointment on compassionate ground is concession not a right

Appointment on compassionate ground could be a concession not a right and also the object of granting such employment is to enable the affected family to bridge over a sudden crisis, the Supreme Court has said.

The apex court last week put aside the judgement of a division bench of the Kerala supreme court, which confirmed the decision of one judge directing the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd et al to think about the case of a girl for appointment on compassionate ground.

A bench of Justices M R Shah and Krishna Murari noted that the daddy of the lady was employed with Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd and died while on duty in April 1995.

At the time of his death, it noted, his wife was serving and thus not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.

"After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground," the bench said.

According to the law laid down by the apex court on appointment on compassionate ground, civil right for all government vacancies should be provided to all or any aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Article 14 of the Constitution deals with equality before law and Article 16 with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

"However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground could be a concession and not a right," the bench said in its judgement delivered on September 30.

The apex court noted that when the worker had died in 1995, his daughter was a minor. On attaining the age of majority, she made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, the court said.

It also noted that after a period of around 14 years after his death, his daughter had submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground.

Referring to previous judgements of the highest court, the bench said as per the law laid down, compassionate appointment is an exception to the overall rule of appointment within the public services and is in favour of dependants of an individual dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and with none means of livelihood.

In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration, a provision is created within the rules to produce gainful employment to 1 of the dependants of the deceased who is also eligible for such employment, the court said.

"The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to suffice the sudden crisis. the item isn't to provide such family a post much less a post held by the deceased," the bench said.

Allowing the appeal filed by Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd et al. against the March this year verdict of the court, the court said that if such an arrangement is created now it shall be against the thing and purpose that the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.

Setting aside the court judgement, it said both the only judge further because the division bench had committed a mistake in directing the appellants to reconsider her case for appointment on compassionate ground.

The bench noted that her application for compassionate appointment was rejected in February 2018 on the grounds that her name wasn't within the list of dependants submitted by the deceased employee which the policy was to grant employment to widow or son or unmarried daughter of the worker.

It also noted that in December 2019, the appellants had again rejected her application for appointment on compassionate ground on the grounds that 24 years had lapsed since the death of the worker. It also failed to meet the first test of scheme that the deceased employee should be the "sole bread winner of his family" since his wife was gainfully employed with the Kerala State Health Services Department at the time of his death, the bench said.