Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
Leave granted.
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 appellants to
grant appointment on a compassionate basis to the
respondent within a period of three months from the date
of the order.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
Following the order of the Tribunal, the respondent
filed a Writ 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
4 DOP&T OM No.14014/3/2011 – ESST(D) dated 26.07.2012
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 gainfully employed,
as a matter of fact, his salary certificate indicated
that he was working on a daily wage basis.
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.
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 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
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, 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 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 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 Haryana 5, this
Court held thus:
“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,
5 (1994) 4 SCC 138
mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of 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 in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in nonmanual 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:
“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 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.”
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
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.
We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned 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.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2425 OF 2019
(@ SLP(C) No.5810 of 2017)
VERSUS
Date : 01-03-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Pall, Adv.
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)