Compassionate Appointment, Not a Vested Right: Supreme Court

On November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right for the appointment that can be granted without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a selection process. The bench constituting Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the matter. The three-judge bench of the SC heard an appeal filed by a man (appellant), son of a deceased constable in Haryana Police, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as his father and another constable died while on duty on November 22, 1997. The appellant then was 7 years of age and the policy which was in force was dated May 08, 1995, which provided for ex-gratia appointment confined to Class III and IV posts. The widow of the other police constable, who died along with the father of the Appellant, was granted a compassionate appointment as a constable upon her application. The mother of the Appellant, being illiterate, could not seek an appointment for herself and therefore applied for a compassionate appointment for her son (Appellant). In 2008, after attaining majority, the claim for a compassionate appointment for the appellant was applied. 

Haryana Government rejected the claim, “The reason assigned was that from the date of death of the Appellant’s father till he having become major 11 years had passed rendering the claim time barred when taken from the date of death of the father of the Appellant. For this reliance was placed on the Government instructions dated 22.03.1999 where a minor dependent of a deceased government employee gets the benefit provided he/she attains age of majority within a period of three years from the date of death of the government employee. It was further intimated that, as per the “Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees” Rules, 2006…, which were then in force, whereunder the claim was considered, did not contain provision for providing a job under the exgratia scheme.” After hearing the matter, the top Court said that it found nothing wrong in the Haryana Government’s policy stating that the primary purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the family. 

The judgment reads, “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 bench added, “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.” Lastly, the top court granted one more chance to Appellant’s mother to ex-gratia compensation under the compassionate scheme. It added, “...if a decision is not made and if found entitled, the amount not disbursed within the stipulated time, interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be payable from the date of representation till the date of actual payment.”