Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Division Bench: Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke) held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must strictly conform to the scheme in force on the date of the employee’s death.
The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the daughter of a deceased Zilla Parishad employee, who had sought appointment on compassionate grounds nearly 19 years after her father’s death, observing that the scheme is meant to relieve immediate distress, not provide deferred employment.
“Compassionate appointment is not a vested right — it is a concession extended to meet sudden financial crisis. Delay defeats the very object of such a scheme.”
The Bench held that the petitioner’s claim was barred by limitation, ineligible under the scheme, and unsupported by proof of financial hardship.
Facts
The petitioner’s father, a Zilla Parishad employee, died in harness on 14 February 2004. At that time, his family comprised the widow and three minor children. The family received all terminal benefits, including gratuity, provident fund, and family pension.
The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in 2023, nearly two decades after the death, citing that her mother, who was initially the recipient of family pension, had become bedridden and that the family was facing renewed financial hardship.
The authorities rejected the application on the ground that the claim was hopelessly delayed, and that as per the Compassionate Appointment Scheme applicable to Zilla Parishad employees, applications must be made within five years of the employee’s death.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226, seeking to quash the rejection order and direct her appointment on compassionate grounds.
Issues
- Whether compassionate appointment can be claimed after an inordinate delay of 19 years from the date of the employee’s death.
- Whether the right to compassionate appointment accrues under the policy prevailing at the time of application or at the time of the employee’s death.
- Whether the petitioner, being an adult at the time of application, could claim benefit on the basis of her deceased father’s employment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that her family continued to face financial hardship even after receiving pension and terminal benefits, particularly due to her mother’s ill health and the lack of other earning members.
She argued that the object of compassionate appointment is to prevent destitution of the deceased employee’s family, and that the authorities should consider the continuing hardship faced by the family, not merely the immediate aftermath of the death.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412, which held that compassionate appointment schemes must be interpreted liberally to advance the object of welfare.
It was further submitted that the petitioner’s late application should be condoned, as she was a minor at the time of her father’s death, and could not have applied earlier. The principles of social justice warranted a lenient approach.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Zilla Parishad opposed the petition, arguing that the claim was grossly belated, having been filed nearly 19 years after the death, long after the expiry of the scheme’s five-year limit.
Counsel for the respondents relied on State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2023) 6 SCC 506, where the Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be granted contrary to the policy in force at the relevant time.
It was argued that the family had already received all financial benefits, including pension, gratuity, and provident fund, thereby mitigating the immediate distress. The petitioner’s claim, made after nearly two decades, defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment.
The respondents further cited Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, emphasizing that compassionate employment is not a means of securing employment for family members but a narrow exception to recruitment rules.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the object, scope, and limitations of compassionate appointment schemes, emphasizing that such schemes are not alternative modes of recruitment but exceptions to ensure immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee.
Referring to the Government Resolution of 2004, the Bench noted that the scheme explicitly required applications within five years from the employee’s death. Subsequent G.R.s had not relaxed this condition.
The Court observed that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed under policies that came into force after the employee’s death, as held in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496. The scheme applicable at the time of death governs eligibility.
It further noted that the petitioner had failed to establish any exceptional circumstance justifying condonation of a 19-year delay. The passage of time and the family’s continued receipt of pension showed that the immediate financial crisis had long subsided.
Precedent Analysis
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 — The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a vested right. It aims to provide immediate relief to the family at the time of death, not to provide employment at convenience.
- State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2023) 6 SCC 506 — Reaffirmed that delayed claims for compassionate appointment defeat the purpose of the scheme.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496 — The scheme prevailing at the time of the employee’s death determines eligibility; later schemes cannot be invoked.
- Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412 — Held that schemes should be applied liberally, but within the framework of existing policy.
- Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh (1997) 8 SCC 85 — Stated that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after long delay, as the family is presumed to have overcome immediate hardship.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the core purpose of compassionate appointment is to ameliorate sudden financial distress, not to provide employment decades later.
It observed that by receiving all posthumous benefits and pension for nearly 19 years, the family had achieved financial stability, nullifying the rationale for compassionate employment.
“Once the immediate financial hardship is overcome, the need for compassionate appointment ceases. It cannot be treated as hereditary employment or deferred compensation.”
The Bench also clarified that minority at the time of death does not automatically extend the limitation period unless the scheme expressly provides for such relaxation.
Finding no procedural irregularity or violation of policy, the Court upheld the Zilla Parishad’s decision as legal, justified, and consistent with established law.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:
- The compassionate appointment scheme is meant for immediate relief;
- Delay of 19 years is fatal;
- The petitioner’s minority at the time of death does not justify relaxation of the scheme;
- The family’s continued financial stability eliminates the basis for compassionate employment.
“Employment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of inheritance. Once the crisis has passed, the claim loses its very foundation.”
Implications
This judgment reinforces that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure, not an alternative route to employment.
It emphasizes strict adherence to policy timelines and reaffirms that claims made after long delays — especially when families have been financially compensated — will not be entertained.
The decision safeguards the integrity of merit-based public recruitment while ensuring that compassionate employment remains a temporary relief mechanism, not a permanent entitlement.
