Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the inordinate delay of over thirteen years in providing compassionate appointment to the widow of a deceased government employee. The Court directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to process the compassionate appointment of the petitioner without further delay and to treat the petitioner’s eligibility from the date of her initial application.
Emphasizing the settled law on compassionate appointments, the Court observed:
“Once the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment was recognized, the delay on the part of the respondents to act upon it was unjustified.”
Facts
The petitioner was the widow of a government employee who died in harness on 14 February 2006. Soon after his death, she submitted an application for compassionate appointment, as permitted under the prevailing scheme of the Government of NCT of Delhi. However, despite submitting all documents and completing necessary formalities, the authorities took no concrete steps for over a decade.
The petitioner made repeated representations. It was only after a contempt petition was filed that a letter dated 12 December 2019 was issued stating that her case was under consideration. Eventually, even that process was delayed, and no appointment was provided. Aggrieved by this prolonged delay and administrative apathy, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Government can justify a 13-year delay in processing a compassionate appointment application?
- Whether such delay defeats the very object and purpose of compassionate appointment?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment or at least consideration based on the date of her original application?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that she had applied for compassionate appointment immediately after her husband’s death and fulfilled all the requirements under the scheme. Despite this, the authorities failed to take timely action for over thirteen years. The petitioner highlighted that:
- The delay was caused entirely by the lethargy and indifference of the administrative machinery.
- The concept of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family, which is defeated by such extraordinary delay.
- The authorities’ evasive replies and shifting of responsibility between departments showed mala fide intention.
- She should be considered eligible from the date of her first application, not from any subsequent communication.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Government of NCT of Delhi defended the delay by citing procedural formalities and lack of clarity regarding the petitioner’s eligibility. They submitted that:
- The case required verification and clearance from multiple departments.
- The petitioner’s file had gone through multiple rounds of scrutiny and communication delays.
- There was no malafide intention, and her case was under active consideration.
However, the Government could not provide any cogent explanation for why the case remained undecided for over thirteen years, despite repeated representations and court directions.
Analysis of the Law
The doctrine of compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a policy measure intended to alleviate the financial hardship of the family of a deceased employee. Courts have consistently held that such appointments must be processed expeditiously.
The High Court referred to the principle that “delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment.” The object is to provide immediate support to the family so they can survive the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. Any delay renders the policy futile and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that repeated court directions had been ignored and the petitioner’s family had been left in the lurch for over a decade. It held that procedural delays cannot be allowed to defeat a welfare scheme of such vital importance.
Precedent Analysis
- Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412: The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment must be offered without delay to achieve the objective of financial aid to the family in distress.
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138: It was laid down that compassionate appointments are not regular recruitments but are meant to tide over the crisis caused by the employee’s death.
- Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 192: The Supreme Court held that when there is no dispute about eligibility, the employer must act promptly.
These judgments emphasize that the appointment must be made in a time-bound manner, else it loses its very purpose.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that the respondents had no justification for the prolonged delay. He held:
“It is wholly unjustified for a State to compel a bereaved widow to wait for over a decade for what is essentially a welfare measure.”
The Court noted that the file had been tossed between departments, and no finality was ever reached. The repeated assurances that the matter was under consideration were meaningless without action.
The Court categorically rejected the excuse of procedural delay, stating that once the petitioner’s eligibility had been accepted, the delay could not be justified. It also noted that in contempt proceedings, the respondents had already admitted the pendency of the case and yet no appointment was made.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to process the petitioner’s appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. The appointment was to be treated as being considered from the date of the original application. The Court imposed no costs but strongly deprecated the administrative conduct in denying timely justice to a grieving family.
Implications
- Timely Welfare Support: The judgment reiterates the need for prompt implementation of compassionate appointment schemes.
- Accountability for Delay: Government departments cannot hide behind procedural formalities when dealing with welfare matters.
- Relief to Grieving Families: The judgment ensures that families of deceased employees are not denied their rightful relief due to bureaucratic inertia.
Case Law Referred
- Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar: Reinforced the principle that delay defeats the object of compassionate appointment.
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana: Clarified that compassionate appointment is not a regular right but must be exercised promptly.
- Pushpendra Kumar case: Delayed appointments defeat the intent of supporting families in immediate need.
FAQs
Q1. Can a government department delay compassionate appointments indefinitely?
No. Delays in compassionate appointments defeat their very purpose. The courts have held that such appointments must be processed within a reasonable timeframe.
Q2. Is compassionate appointment a matter of right?
Not strictly a right, but once eligibility is acknowledged under the policy, it must be implemented fairly and without unjust delay.
Q3. What happens if a delay is caused due to inter-departmental issues?
Courts have held that internal administrative delays cannot prejudice an eligible applicant. Authorities must resolve such issues promptly.
