The (Married) Respondent Not Be Entitled To Be Appointed on The Compassionate Grounds: Supreme Court

Background

In a significant judgment, (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6938 OF 2022) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that married daughter cannot get appointment on compassionate ground even when mother dies during service. In this case, the mother of the respondent was appointed when her deceased husband died in harness. The daughter claimed service, when mother died.

Facts of the Case:

That the father of the respondent was in the clerical cadre serving with the appellants. He died in harness. After his death, his wife, i.e., mother of the respondent was appointed on compassionate ground. However, she died while in service. That thereafter the elder sister of the respondent namely Mrs. Sangita M. Thonge made application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected vide communication dated 18.08.2011 on the ground that she cannot be given the appointment on compassionate ground as she is a married daughter.

That thereafter the State Government issued a Government Circular dated 26.02.2013, according to which the employment was to be provided to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased government servant on compassionate grounds.

Hon’ble Supreme Court delved into many case laws relating to appointment on the basis of compassionate ground. These are:

a. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704

b. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653

c. Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289,

d. N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617

While referring the above judgement, Supreme Court summarized the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:

(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the
State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.

The Apex Court made it clear that, “decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government
vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”.

The Court Referred to its previous significant judgment viz. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] in which it was held that, “

“…principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable
the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme“.

Finally it was held that, “compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment..,to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.”

The Supreme Court made it clear that the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground.

CASE: The State of Maharashtra and Anr. …Appellant(s) Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate …Respondent(s) (Since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli)

READ ALSO: https://judgesandlawyers.com/concession-is-not-right/