Supreme Court of India
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR.versusP. VENKATESH
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 302
- Decided
- 1 March 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
A compassionate appointment claim must be made promptly; a delay of over a decade defeats the claim and the High Court's order is set aside.
Summary
The father, a Union employee, died in May 1996 and his widow sought a compassionate appointment for her son. Initial representations were rejected in 1997 and 1999, and the son only approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2007, more than a decade after the death. The CAT rejected the application, and successive petitions were also dismissed; the Madras High Court later set aside the CAT order and directed a compassionate appointment. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the essence of a compassionate appointment lies in the immediacy of the family's financial crisis and that a delay of over ten years renders the claim stale. Consequently, the High Court's mandamus was set aside and the CAT's dismissal upheld. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of laches applies to such claims and that speedy disposal must not compromise justice. The appeal was allowed, affirming the tribunal’s decision.
Issues considered
- Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a delay of more than ten years from the death of the employee.
- Whether the doctrine of laches applies to compassionate appointment claims.
- Whether the High Court's mandamus directing a compassionate appointment is legally sustainable.
Subjects
compassionate appointmentdelaylachesservice lawCentral Administrative Tribunalmandamusspeedy disposalgovernment employee
Judgment
978 SUPREME [2019]
COURT2 REPORTS
S.C.R. 978 [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
P. VENKATESH
(Civil Appeal No. 2425 of 2019)
B MARCH 01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service law:
Compassionate appointment – Claim of – Delay of over a
C
decade in raising a claim by son of the deceased government
employee– Effect of – Held: Essence of the claim of compassionate
appointment lies in the immediacy of the need – Recourse to the
tribunal suffered from a delay of over a decade in the first instance
– Staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providing
D compassionate appointment – Thus, the claim of compassionate
appointment is rejected – Judgment of the High Court which had
allowed the claim is set aside – Delay/laches.
Administration of justice:
Speedy disposal of cases – ‘Dispose of the representation’
E mantra – Effect of – Held: Is increasingly permeating the judicial
process in the High Courts and the tribunals – Such orders may
make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened
adjudicatory institutions – However, they do no service to the cause
of justice – Litigant is back again before the court, having incurred
F attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Compassionate appointment, is intended to
enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis
which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in
G harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the
need. It is evident that even the first recourse to the Central
Administrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after
the death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set of
representations had been rejected in 1997. The tribunal,
H
978
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR. v. P. VENKATESH 979
unfortunately, passed a succession of orders calling upon the A
appellants to consider and then re-consider the representations
for compassionate appointment. After the Government rejected
the representation in 2007, it was only in 2010 that the tribunal
was moved again, with the same result. These successive orders
of tribunal for re-consideration of the representation cannot
B
obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the tribunal for
compassionate appointment over a decade after the death of the
deceased employee. This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra
is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts
and the tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy
disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, C
they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back
again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred
attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This
would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first
instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. By the time,
D
the High Court issued its direction on 9 August 2016, nearly
twenty one years had elapsed since the date of the death of the
employee. [Para 8][981-D-H; 982-A]
1.2 The recourse to the tribunal suffered from a delay of
over a decade in the first instance. This staleness of the claim
took away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment. E
The claim was liable to be rejected on that ground and ought to
have been so rejected. The judgment of the High Court is
unsustainable and is set aside. The judgment of the tribunal
dismissing the Original Application is upheld. [Paras 11, 12]
[982-G; 983-A] F
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC
138 – referred to
Case Law Reference
(1994) 4 SCC 138 referred to Para 8 G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2425
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2016 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 4598 of 2014.
H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Dhruv Pall, Ms.
Bhavana Duhoon, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the Appellants.
Aravindh S., Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
B
1. Leave granted.
2. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras,
by its judgment dated 9 August 2016, issued a mandamus, while setting
aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and directed the
C appellants to grant appointment on a compassionate basis to the respondent
within a period of three months from the date of the order.
3. The father of the respondent, who was working in the Union
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, died on 25 May 1996. The
widow of the deceased employee made a representation for
D compassionate appointment. On 3 January 1997, the representation
submitted by her was rejected. Thereafter, a fresh representation was
made, which was considered and rejected in the Minutes of a Meeting
held on 1 July 1999, which considered similar requests by several other
employees.
E 4. In 2007, the respondent initiated proceedings1 before the Madras
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order
dated 26 June 2007, directed the appellants to consider the representation
of the respondent dated 14 February 2006 by a speaking order. The OA
was disposed of. Accordingly, on 13 November 2007, a speaking order
was passed rejecting the representation.
F 5. The respondent then filed another OA2 before the Tribunal on
which an order was passed on 16 March 2011 directing the appellants to
dispose of the representation after re-consideration. Again, when the
claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on 25 August 2011,
the respondent moved the Tribunal in a third OA3. The Tribunal dismissed
G the OA by an order dated 30 April 2013, holding that the claimant was
not eligible under the Scheme4 under which the maximum period for
which the name of a candidate for compassionate appointment could be
kept for consideration was three years.
1
OA 430 of 2007
2
OA 1389 of 2010
H 3
OA 183 of 2012
4
DOP&T OM No. 14014/3/2011 - ESST(D) dated 26.07.2012
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR. v. P. VENKATESH 981
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
6. Following the order of the Tribunal, the respondent filed a Writ A
Petition before the High Court in which the impugned order has been
passed, setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal and granting a
mandamus for appointment on a compassionate basis. The High Court
observed, after perusing the record, that though the representation had
been rejected on the ground that the elder brother of the respondent was B
gainfully employed, as a matter of fact, his salary certificate indicated
that he was working on a daily wage basis.
7. We have heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Aravindh S.,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. C
8. The primary difficulty in accepting the line of submissions, which
weighed with the High Court, and were reiterated on behalf of the
respondent in these proceedings, is simply this: Compassionate
appointment, it is well-settled, is intended to enable the family of a
deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of D
the death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim
lies in the immediacy of the need. If the facts of the present case are
seen, it is evident that even the first recourse to the Central Administrative
Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death of the employee.
In the meantime, the first set of representations had been rejected on 3 E
January 1997. The Tribunal, unfortunately, passed a succession of orders
calling upon the appellants to consider and then re-consider the
representations for compassionate appointment. After the Union Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting rejected the representation on 13
November 2007, it was only in 2010 that the Tribunal was moved again,
F
with the same result. These successive orders of Tribunal for re-
consideration of the representation cannot obliterate the effect of the
initial delay in moving the Tribunal for compassionate appointment over
a decade after the death of the deceased employee. This ‘dispose of the
representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in
the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick G
or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But,
they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again
before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs
and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated
by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A to the dispute. By the time, the High Court issued its direction on 9
August 2016, nearly twenty one years had elapsed since the date of the
death of the employee.
In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana5, this Court
held thus:
B
“2...The whole object of granting compassionate employment is
thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object
is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for
post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of
C livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has
to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,
and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a
job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts
D in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and
manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on
compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of
the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”
Bearing in mind the above principles, this Court held:
E
“6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot
be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be
specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is
not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
The object being to enable the family to get over the financial
F crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner,
the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered
whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”
9. The recourse to the Tribunal suffered from a delay of over a
decade in the first instance. This staleness of the claim took away the
G
very basis of providing companssionate appointment. The claim was
liable to be rejected on that ground and ought to have been so rejected.
The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable.
5
H (1994) 4 SCC 138
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR. v. P. VENKATESH 983
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
10. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned A
judgment and order of the High Court. In consequence, we affirm the
judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "compassionate appointment"Sign in to search