Supreme Court of India
TINKUversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 867
- Decided
- 13 November 2024
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be granted only within the statutory time limit; therefore, the appellant's claim is time‑barred and cannot be sustained.
Summary
The appellant, Tinku, son of a constable who died on duty in 1997, sought a compassionate appointment after attaining majority in 2008, relying on earlier communications that his name was entered in a Minor's Register. The State rejected his claim, invoking a 1999 government instruction that a dependent must attain majority within three years of the employee's death, and noting that the 2006 Rules did not provide for such appointments. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, and the Supreme Court upheld that compassionate appointments are not a vested right and must comply with the applicable policy, which the appellant failed to meet due to the 11‑year delay. The Court also held that Article 14 cannot be used to compel the State to grant benefits absent legal backing, and that illegal past orders do not create enforceable rights. However, the Court allowed the appellant's mother a one‑time opportunity to claim lump‑sum ex‑gratia compensation under the 2005/2003 Rules, directing the competent authority to decide within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant was entitled to a compassionate appointment despite the three‑year time limit prescribed by the 1999 instructions.
- Whether Article 14 can be invoked to enforce a claim for compassionate appointment in the absence of a statutory provision.
- Whether past illegal or irregular appointments create a vested right enforceable under the principle of equality.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds – When not entitled to – Appellant’s father, a constable died on duty in 1997 when he was seven years on compassionate grounds in 2008 after attaining majority – Claim rejected being time barred in view of the 1999 policy which introduced three years limit for attainment of the age of majority from the date of death of the deceased employee: Held: Compassionate appointment is an
Subjects
Compassionate appointmentAppointment on compassionate groundsCompassionate appointment not a vested rightArticle 14 of the Constitution of IndiaClaim time barredEx-gratia policySimilarly placed personsEqualityCompassionate appointment exception to the general rule of appointmentLump sum ex-gratia compensationConstableDied on dutyAttainment of the age of majorityOuter limitThree years for attainment of the age of majority from the date of death of the deceased employeeDied in harnessDependentScrutinySole bread earner expiredImmediate succourIllegality or irregularityIllegal order wrongfully conferring right or claimEquity
Judgment
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 713 : 2024 INSC 867
Tinku
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024)
13 November 2024
[Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and
Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to appointment on compassionate
grounds.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds –
When not entitled to – Appellant’s father, a constable died
on duty in 1997 when he was seven years old – Appellant
claimed appointment on compassionate grounds in 2008
after attaining majority – Claim rejected being time barred
in view of the 1999 policy which introduced three years limit
for attainment of the age of majority from the date of death
of the deceased employee:
Held: Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general
rule of appointment and cannot be claimed as a vested right for
appointment – Said right is not a condition of service of an employee
who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without
any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection – It is
an appointment given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various
parameters with an intention to help a family out of a sudden
pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging
urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving
them helpless and may be penniless – The purpose of such policies
is to give immediate succour to the family – When seen in this
conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the date of
death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which,
includes attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions
issued by the Government are not unjustified or illogical, especially
when compassionate appointment is not a vested right – Appellant’s
claim was rightly rejected by the respondent-State as he attained
majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father – Impugned
*Author
714 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
judgment of the High Court rejecting the appellant’s claim cannot be
faulted with – However, appellant’s mother granted an opportunity to
make a representation for exercising her option for the grant of lump
sum ex-gratia compensation – Haryana compassionate Assistance
to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employee Rules,
2006 – Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of
he Deceased Government Employee Rules, 2005. [Paras 9, 12,
15, 16, 23]
Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds –
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Cannot be invoked to
perpetuate illegality – Appellant’s claim for appointment on
compassionate grounds under the ex-gratia policy was rejected
being time barred – Plea of the appellant that the benefit of
appointment on compassionate grounds had been granted to
other similarly placed persons:
Held: Equality enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept based
on law – It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of
law – Court cannot issue direction mandating the State to perpetuate
any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an
individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the
policy or instructions applicable – Similarly, passing of an illegal
order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does
not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would
court be bound to accept such plea – The court will not compel
the authority to repeat that illegality over again – Equity cannot be
extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage
without legal basis or justification. [Para 11]
Case Law Cited
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [1994] 3 SCR 893 :
(1994) 4 SCC 138; Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India [2009] 13
SCR 710 : (2009) 15 SCC 705; Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit
Singh [1995] 1 SCR 126 : (1995) 1 SCC 745; R Muthukumar v.
TANGEDCO [2022] 1 SCR 577 : (2022) SCC Online SC 151;
Basawaraj & Anr v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2013] 8 SCR
227 : (2013) 14 SCC 81 – referred to.
List of Acts
Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased
Government Employee Rules, 2006; Haryana Compassionate
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 715
Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government
Employee Rules, 2005.
List of Keywords
Compassionate appointment; Appointment on compassionate
grounds; Compassionate appointment not a vested right; Article
14 of the Constitution of India; Claim time barred; Ex-gratia policy;
Similarly placed persons; Equality; Compassionate appointment
exception to the general rule of appointment; Lump sum ex-gratia
compensation; Constable; Died on duty; Attainment of the age
of majority; Outer limit; Three years for attainment of the age
of majority from the date of death of the deceased employee;
Died in harness; Dependent/dependant; Scrutiny; Sole bread
earner expired; Immediate succour; Illegality or irregularity; Illegal
order wrongfully conferring right or claim; Equity.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 160 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Priyanjali Singh, Adv. for the Appellant.
Shekhar Raj Sharma, D.A.G., Akshay Amritanshu, Samyak Jain,
Ms. Nidhi Narwal, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Advs.
for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Augustine George Masih, J.
1. This Appeal has been preferred by the son of Shri Jai Prakash, a
deceased constable in Haryana Police, seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds, as his father and another constable died
while on duty on 22.11.1997. The Appellant then was seven years of
age, and the policy which was in force was dated 08.05.1995 which
provided for ex-gratia appointment confined to Class III and IV posts.
716 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The widow of Balwan Singh, the other police constable, who died
along with the father of the Appellant, was granted compassionate
appointment as a constable upon her application.
2. The mother of the Appellant, being illiterate, could not seek an
appointment for herself and therefore applied for compassionate
appointment for her son, the Appellant herein. A letter from the
Director General of Police, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “DGP”)
dated 15.04.1998 was received by the Superintendent of Police
on 20.04.1998 directing the name of the Appellant, Tinku, son of
deceased Constable Jaiprakash, to be entered in the Minor’s Register
No. 47. This indicated the intention of the authorities of reserving
one post for grant of employment to the Appellant at a later stage
being minor child of deceased employee as per the applicable policy.
3. Since the Appellant was a minor, his claim was kept pending. A
further communication from the office of the Superintendent of
Police, Rohtak, dated 30.12.2003, was received by the mother of
the Appellant that on attainment of the age of majority, the Appellant
should approach the Office of the Welfare Inspector to get the case
prepared. It is on this basis that the Appellant approached the DGP
by way of representation dated 30.10.2008 putting forth his claim
for appointment under the ex-gratia scheme, specifying therein that
he had attained the age of majority on 10.10.2008. His mother also
submitted a representation to the DGP, making reference to the earlier
communications as mentioned above for the grant of appointment
on compassionate grounds as per the policy.
4. The claim of the Appellant was considered, and communication
was received from the DGP dated 28.04.2009 addressed to the
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, with a copy thereof to the mother
of the Appellant intimating rejection of the claim for appointment on
compassionate grounds. The reason assigned was that from the
date of death of the Appellant’s father till he having become major
11 years had passed rendering the claim time barred when taken
from the date of death of the father of the Appellant. For this reliance
was placed on the Government instructions dated 22.03.1999 where
a minor dependent of a deceased government employee gets the
benefit provided he/she attains age of majority within a period of
three years from the date of death of the government employee.
It was further intimated that, as per the “Haryana Compassionate
Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees”
Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “2006 Rules”), which were
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 717
Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors.
then in force, whereunder the claim was considered, did not contain
provision for providing a job under the ex-gratia scheme.
5. Faced with this situation, the Appellant had preferred a writ petition
before the High Court in the year 2009, with the plea of promissory
estoppel in the light of communications received referred to above.
The writ was dismissed on 12.01.2021 holding therein that the principle
of estoppel would not be applicable to the case in hand as it was
only a communication which was sent to the petitioner with regard
to the name having been entered in the minor’s register, while the
subsequent communication from the Superintendent of Police was
for approaching the authority on the attainment of the age of majority
by the ward. An aspect with regard to the delay from the date of
death of the father of the Appellant till the date of he having attained
majority which is around 11 years also weighed on the mind of the
Court in the light of the law as has been laid down by this Court in
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana.1
6. An intra court appeal preferred by the Appellant resulted in the
dismissal of the same on 22.03.2022, leading to the filing of the
present Appeal.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, by making reference to additional
documents submitted that there has been violation of the right of
equality relating to consideration for appointment under the ex-gratia
policy, as it is asserted that in similar factual matters the benefit of
appointment on compassionate grounds had been granted. It has
been asserted that since the Appellant is similarly placed, he should
be granted the same benefit. A reference in this regard has been
made to Annexures A-1 appended along with the Appeal.
8. A perusal of the above would indicate that the said benefit of
appointment on attaining the age of majority, irrespective of the
period having lapsed from the date of death of the parent, had
been granted prior to 22.03.1999 when an outer limit of three years
for attainment of the age of majority from the date of death of the
deceased government employee was introduced by the instructions.
Further, in those matters, the age of attainment of majority was also
prior to the coming into force of instructions dated 22.03.1999.
9. That apart, the claim as has been stated above, cannot be accepted
being not supported with any statutory backing. This is required for
1 [1994] 3 SCR 893 : (1994) 4 SCC 138
718 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
making any claim including a claim for compassionate appointment,
which is an exception to the general rule of appointment requiring a
proper advertisement and selection process to be followed as per
rules which is an accepted norm. If some wrong benefit has been
conferred or some benefit which is contrary to the scheme has been
granted, it would not bestow a right upon the others to claim it as a
right of equality by reference to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. There are catena of judgments of this Court that clearly lay down
the principles which govern such claims. Some of which are Shanti
Sports Club v. Union of India,2 Chandigarh Administration v.
Jagjit Singh,3 R Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO,4 Basawaraj & Anr
v. Special Land Acquisition Officer.5
11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed
in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having
sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the
State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour
of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is
contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of
an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone
does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor
would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel
the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are
entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against
the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the
law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The
Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer
a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot
be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage
without legal basis or justification.
12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be
claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the
said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in
harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of
scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment
2 [2009] 13 SCR 710 : (2009) 15 SCC 705
3 [1995] 1 SCR 126 : (1995) 1 SCC 745
4 [2022] 1 SCR 577 : (2022) SCC Online SC 151
5 [2013] 8 SCR 227 : (2013) 14 SCC 81
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 719
Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors.
which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters
as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden
pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging
urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving
them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment
is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee
facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the
family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be
subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the
policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment.
13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy,
instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate
grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted.
14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed
for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to
a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is
culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased
employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services
rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal
expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of
the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of
the sole bread earner.
15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour
to the family. When seen in this conspectus, three years as has been
laid down from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a
claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per
the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana
cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially
when compassionate appointment is not a vested right.
16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the Appellant
attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father. The
claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The
decisions of the High Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting
the claim of the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with.
17. The claim of the Appellant for appointment on compassionate
grounds having been found to be not sustainable, an aspect that
has come to light which requires consideration as has been put forth
by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, is with regard to the grant
of ex-gratia financial assistance. This is asserted in the light of the
720 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
fact that the claim of the Appellant was pending consideration for
compassionate appointment for long with the respondents, and the
same had finally been decided on 28.04.2009 by rejecting the same
and that too primarily on the ground that the said claim is time barred.
It is further stated that in the impugned Order dated 28.04.2009 that
there is no provision for providing job under the ex-gratia scheme
in the 2006 Rules.
18. Going by the stand of the respondents, it is apparent that the claim
of the Appellant was considered under 2006 Rules which were
enforced with effect from 01.08.2006. These Rules apart from other
aspects provide for the manner of dealing with the pending cases.
Rule 8, which relates to repeal and savings, mentions the earlier
prevalent rules, namely the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to
the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employee Rules,
2005. The first proviso thereto states that the families would have
the option to opt for the lump sum ex-gratia grant provided in the
Rules of 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly
financial assistance provided under the 2006 Rules.
19. Therefore, as per these 2006 Rules, the claim of dependents of
the deceased employee would enure for consideration to ex-gratia
compensation. The said claim, therefore, as far as the widow of the
deceased is concerned, would survive and operate, especially in light
of the fact that her son, for whom she had sought an appointment
on compassionate grounds has been found to be ineligible because
of he being a minor. A further perusal of the 2003 and 2005 Rules
would show that the pending cases were to be dealt with under
those rules.
20. The admitted factual position is that all through the claim of
employment of the Appellant was pending with the respondents
and consequently the right of consideration of claim for ex-gratia
compensation would also subsist. Given an option, the mother of
the Appellant could have sought the benefit of such compensation
had she been informed in time about the non-acceptance of her
request for employment of her minor son. She was kept waiting for
a final decision on the claim till its rejection in 2009.
21. The Government of Haryana had taken a conscious decision on
16.03.2011 granting a mercy chance as one-time measure to exercise
option for ex-gratia compensation. A perusal of the said decision
would show that it was a one-time relaxation for applying for ex-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 721
Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors.
gratia compensation in old cases pertaining to the claims before
01.08.2006. This was done having regard to the fact that in old cases
where the family of the deceased employee could not exercise the
option within time, due to lack of requisite knowledge or other reasons
because of which their dependents could not avail the benefit under
the ex-gratia scheme being time-barred. Such dependents were,
accordingly, given one more chance to give an option.
22. Admittedly, this decision of the government was never brought to
the notice of the mother of the Appellant. It could not be disputed
that no intimation whatsoever had been sent to the widow of the
deceased government employee regarding the exercise of such an
option. Had she been informed, she could have applied for the grant
of ex-gratia compensation. The inaction on the part of the State in
intimating her of her entitlement to put forth the claim is the reason
for she having not opted for it.
23. It would thus be just and reasonable that one opportunity is granted
to the widow of the deceased government employee, Jai Prakash and
the mother of the Appellant, to make a representation for exercising
her option for the grant of lump sum ex-gratia compensation. We
permit her to do so. On submission of the representation, the same
shall be considered by the competent authority and a decision taken
thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt thereof.
The lumpsum compensation, if granted and released within the time
stipulated above, shall not carry any interest. However, if a decision
is not made and if found entitled, the amount not disbursed within the
stipulated time, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum shall be
payable from the date of representation till the date of actual payment.
24. The present Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
25. There shall be no order as to costs.
26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
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