2009 (10) TMI 987 - HC - Indian Laws

Compassionate appointment not a vested right, must adhere to current policy for fair evaluation.

The court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a benefit granted under specific policies, and should be based on the policy in ... Compassionate appointment as an exception to merit-based public employment - entitlement to compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right - application of the scheme or policy prevailing at the time of consideration - employer's obligation to decide claims for compassionate appointment with promptitude - precedential value limited to the ratio and facts; need to read judgments in contextApplication of the scheme or policy prevailing at the time of consideration - compassionate appointment as an exception to merit-based public employment - Policy to be applied for grant of compassionate appointment - HELD THAT: - The Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of public employment and is governed by Schemes/Rules framed by the employer. Because the benefit is non vested and discretionary, the relevant Scheme or Policy for determining entitlement is the one in force at the time the claim is considered for grant (i.e., when the appointment is to be made). The employer is entitled to change its policy and consideration must be governed by the Rules prevailing at the point of consideration rather than by a prior or superseded policy. The Court rejected the proposition that a pending application must be decided as per the policy in force at the time of submission where that policy has since been altered.Claim for compassionate appointment is to be evaluated in accordance with the Scheme/Policy prevailing at the time of consideration.Entitlement to compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right - Nature of the right to compassionate appointment - HELD THAT: - The Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right but a remedial exception carved out to mitigate sudden hardship on the family of a deceased employee. It must be administered strictly in accordance with the Scheme and the object is limited to meeting immediate hardship; it cannot be a mode of general recruitment or confer ongoing entitlement beyond the purpose for which it is provided.Compassionate appointment is a non vested, exceptional benefit to be granted only as per the governing Scheme.Precedential value limited to the ratio and facts; need to read judgments in context - Scope and weight of earlier decisions relied upon by parties - HELD THAT: - The Court emphasised that earlier decisions must be read in the context of their facts and that only the ratio decidendi binds. Observations made in other cases (including the passages relied upon) cannot be generalized beyond the factual setting in which they were expressed. Consequently, decisions to the contrary on the precise legal question (notably the view that the policy at time of application governs) were examined and found to be incorrectly decided in law.Previous authorities must be understood by their ratio and factual matrix; broader extrapolations are not binding.Employer's obligation to decide claims for compassionate appointment with promptitude - Duty of employer in processing compassionate appointment applications - HELD THAT: - While holding that the policy at the time of consideration governs, the Court added that employers should not delay adjudication; given the humanitarian object of compassionate appointment, applications ought to be dealt with immediately and promptly so that families in distress receive fair treatment according to law.Employer must decide compassionate appointment applications with promptitude to effectuate the remedial purpose of the scheme.Overruling of decisions holding policy at time of application - Validity of earlier High Court decisions directing application of the policy in force at time of application - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the views expressed in T. Swamy Dass and Heeralal Baria, which treated the policy at the time of application or death as governing, do not state the correct law and are overruled. The correct legal position is that the Scheme/Policy in force at the time of consideration governs entitlement.Decisions holding that the policy at the time of application governs are overruled.Remand for decision on merits - Disposition of the present writ petition after answering the reference - HELD THAT: - Having answered the reference on the legal question, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Division Bench for decision on the appeal on merits. The reference question was answered in favour of applying the policy in force at the time of consideration; the underlying writ petition/appeal remains to be adjudicated on merits in light of that legal conclusion.Matter remitted/placed before the Division Bench for decision on merits consistent with the legal conclusions recorded.Final Conclusion: The Reference is answered: compassionate appointment is a non vested, exceptional relief to be governed by the Scheme/Policy prevailing at the time the claim is considered; earlier High Court decisions to the contrary are overruled; employers must decide such applications promptly. The case is returned to the Division Bench for determination of the appeal on merits in accordance with this principle. Issues Involved:1. Which policy of the Government is to be applied in cases of compassionate appointment: the policy at the time of the employee's death, the policy at the time of application, or the policy at the time of considerationRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature and Objective of Compassionate Appointment:Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public service appointments, which typically require merit-based selection through open competition. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee who has died in harness, thereby helping them to tide over the sudden financial crisis. The Supreme Court has emphasized that such appointments should not be viewed as an alternative mode of recruitment but as a means to alleviate the destitution caused by the untimely death of the sole breadwinner. The appointment is governed by specific schemes or policies formulated by the employer, which must align with the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16.2. Policy Applicable for Compassionate Appointment:The core question addressed was whether the policy prevailing at the time of the employee's death, the time of application, or the time of consideration should be applied. The court concluded that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a benefit granted under specific schemes or policies. Therefore, the consideration for such appointments should be based on the policy prevailing at the time of consideration. The employer has the right to change policies based on various factors, and the appointment must be made in accordance with the current policy at the time of consideration.3. Legal Precedents and Principles:The court reviewed several precedents, including cases like Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, and State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, which underscored that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general rule and must be carefully regulated to avoid undue interference with the rights of other eligible candidates. The court also referred to cases like P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone, which established that benefits based on policies or schemes should be granted according to the policy in effect at the time of consideration.4. Evaluation of Claims for Compassionate Appointment:The court emphasized that the evaluation of claims for compassionate appointments should be governed by the policies in existence at the time of consideration, not by outdated policies. This ensures that the employer can adapt to changing circumstances and requirements. The court rejected the argument that applications should be considered based on the policy at the time of submission, as this could allow employers to manipulate the outcome by delaying the processing of applications.5. Specific Case Analysis:In the case at hand, the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was initially submitted under an old policy but was considered and rejected under a new policy that came into effect before the application was processed. The court held that the application should have been evaluated based on the new policy in effect at the time of consideration, affirming the employer's right to apply the current policy.6. Conclusion and Directions:The court concluded that:- Compassionate appointment is not a vested legal right but a benefit granted under specific policies.- Consideration for such appointments should be based on the policy prevailing at the time of consideration.- The decisions in T. Swamy Dass and Heeralal Baria, which suggested otherwise, were overruled.- Employers must process applications for compassionate appointments promptly to ensure fair treatment of families in distress.The reference was answered accordingly, and the matter was remanded to the Division Bench for a decision on the merits of the appeal.