Compassionate appointment — Nature and object — Whether a matter of right — Second/alternative claim after having accepted first appointment — Delay and laches — Negative discrimination. Appointment on compassionate grounds is a humanitarian concession and an exception to the ordinary rule of public employment; it is not a vested right. The core objective is to relieve the immediate financial distress of the deceased employee's family by providing a source of livelihood, ordinarily in the lower rungs of public employment. Once a dependent has been offered and has accepted employment on compassionate grounds and has joined the post, the purpose is ordinarily fulfilled and a second claim for appointment to a higher post is not maintainable — lest compassion become an open‑ended entitlement. Prolonged delay in pursuing a belated claim dilutes the immediacy which is the essence of compassionate relief; delay and laches may disentitle the claimant to discretionary relief. A plea of parity with other beneficiaries who may have been irregularly benefitted cannot be sustained as negative equality; courts will not perpetuate illegality by directing comparable unlawful relief to others. High Court orders directing appointment to a higher post and backdated salary, where based on such impermissible re‑consideration long after consummation of compassionate appointment, are liable to be set aside.
FACTS IN BRIEF
The appeals arise from a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court and subsequent review order directing appointment of certain respondents (dependents of deceased employees) as Junior Assistants instead of the Class‑IV posts (sweepers) to which they had been appointed on compassionate grounds.
Respondents were initially appointed as sweepers on compassionate basis following the deaths of their fathers (employees). They joined the posts. Years later they filed writ petitions seeking appointment to the higher post of Junior Assistant on the ground of possessing requisite qualifications and alleged non‑uniformity with other beneficiaries.
The Single Judge granted relief, directing appointment to the higher post and backdating salary; the Division Bench upheld that order and review was dismissed. The appellants challenge those orders before this Court.
ISSUES
Whether compassionate appointment is a matter of right or a concession requiring scrutiny and satisfaction of policy norms.
Whether a dependent who has accepted and joined a compassionate post can, subsequently and after delay, claim appointment on a higher post on the basis of eligibility.
Whether delay and laches in seeking relief for higher appointment disentitle claimants to discretionary relief.
Whether a claim based on negative discrimination (i.e., others having been irregularly benefited) can sustain a direction to perpetuate the illegality in favour of the claimant.
RELEVANT PRINCIPLES AND ANALYSIS
A. Nature and Object of Compassionate Appointment
• Compassionate appointment is a humanitarian exception to normal recruitment rules — aimed at preventing destitution after the sudden death of an earning family member. It is not a substantive component of the employment contract of the deceased, nor an absolute right of the dependent. Courts have consistently held that the grant is a concession and must be administered on the basis of stated policy, statutory prescriptions and reasoned assessment of the family's financial needs.
B. Once Offered and Accepted, Further Claims are Generally Unsustainable
• Where a dependent applies for compassionate appointment, accepts the post offered and joins service, the object of alleviating immediate financial distress is ordinarily fulfilled. Judicial authorities have held that a second recourse to seek a higher post on compassionate grounds after acceptance would amount to "endless compassion" and is impermissible. Eligibility for a higher post (on academic or other qualifications) does not, by itself, translate into an entitlement to be placed on that post by way of compassionate concession.
C. Delay, Laches and the Immediacy Principle
• The element of immediacy is central to compassionate relief. Significant delay by the applicant in pursuing a higher claim — particularly after having taken up employment on the initial compassionate posting — weakens the claim and may indicate changed family circumstances or alternative sources of livelihood having arisen. Courts exercise discretion to refuse belated claims where delay is unexplained or unreasonable.
D. Negative Equality and Perpetuation of Illegality
• A claimant cannot invoke Article 14 to compel the perpetuation of an illegality earlier committed in favour of another; negative equality is not a permissible ground to extend unlawful advantage. Courts will not order repetition of an earlier irregularity simply because a third party benefited improperly.
APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE
The respondents applied for compassionate appointment and were offered the post of Sweeper (Class IV), which they accepted and joined (dates recorded). Thereafter, after a gap of years (three years in one case; nine years in another), they sought judicial relief for appointment to the higher post of Junior Assistant.
The High Court directed appointment to the higher post with backdated effect. On the established principles above, the High Court erred in permitting a post‑consummation re‑consideration and in effectively converting a humanitarian concession into a substantive recruitment avenue.
The respondents' delay in approaching the court, their prior acceptance of the compassionate appointment, and the absence of any demonstration that the immediate financial exigency persisted or that statutory policy mandated reconsideration, render their claims unsustainable.
The invocation of parity with other beneficiaries cannot validate the claim, since courts must not perpetuate or clone irregularities.
ORDER
Appeals allowed.
The impugned judgments of the Madras High Court dated 3.7.2018 and the subsequent review order dated 31.1.2023 are set aside to the extent they direct appointment of the respondents on the post of Junior Assistant and grant any consequential monetary relief from the date of judgment.
Consequential writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 16758‑16759 of 2015) filed by the respondents in the High Court are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment