Court clarifies compassionate appointment as a concession, not a vested right. Policy at application time governs.

The court held that the right for consideration of compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession granted under specific circumstances to alleviate the deceased employee's family's distress. The policy prevailing at the time of application submission, not the time of the employee's death, should govern compassionate appointment decisions. The judgment emphasized that compassionate appointments are distinct from regular recruitment and depend on eligibility and financial conditions. The ruling aligns with previous decisions and highlights the employer's obligation to promptly address compassionate appointment applications in accordance with the prevailing policy at the time of application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the right for consideration of compassionate appointment is a vested rightRs.
2. In the case of consideration of compassionate appointment, should the policy prevailing at the time of death of the employee or the policy prevailing at the time of application for compassionate appointment be applicableRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The judgment discusses whether the right for consideration of compassionate appointment constitutes a 'vested right.' Various apex Court judgments, such as Umesh Kumar Nagpa v. State of Haryana and others, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das, and others, have established that compassionate appointment is a concession granted under specific circumstances and does not create a vested right for the claimant. The appointment is provided to alleviate the distress of the deceased employee's family. The Court emphasized that the provision should not be stretched beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. The appointment is not an automatic entitlement but depends on eligibility and financial conditions of the family.

Issue 2:
Regarding the policy applicable for compassionate appointment consideration, the judgment clarifies that the policy in force at the time of application submission should govern the decision, not the policy prevailing at the time of the employee's death. The Court highlighted that compassionate appointment is granted under a special scheme distinct from normal recruitment procedures. It emphasized that the employer has the discretion to evolve a scheme for such appointments, and consideration should align with the prevailing policy at the time of application submission. The judgment overruled previous decisions that suggested otherwise and emphasized the employer's obligation to promptly handle compassionate appointment applications to address the family's distress lawfully.

The judgment aligns with the Full Bench's ruling in Bank of Maharashtra v. Menoj Kumar Dehria, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and that the policy in place at the time of application consideration should apply. The Court's decision underscores the exceptional nature of compassionate appointments and the importance of adhering to the prevailing policy at the time of application submission to address the family's distress effectively.

---