List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right.        

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Tinku v. State of Haryana. 

What was the Background of Tinku v. State of Haryana Case?  

• The Appeal was filed by the son of a deceased constable in Haryana Police seeking appointment on compassionate grounds as his father died while on duty. 
• The policy in force at that time (08.05.1995) provided for ex-gratia appointments confined to Class III and Class IV posts. 
• The mother of the appellant, being illiterate, could not seek appointment and therefore applied for a compassionate appointment for her son. 
• A letter was issued by DGP, Haryana, to the Superintendent of Police directing that the name of the Appellant (Tinku) be entered in the register of minor. 
• This indicated the intention of the authorities to grant employment to the Appellant at a later stage being minor child of the deceased.  
• However, at the later stage the claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the claim had become time barred as 11 years had passed from the date of the death of the Appellant’s father till he having become major. 
• For the purpose of the above the reliance was placed on the Government Instructions dated 22nd March 1999 where a minor dependent gets benefit provided, he/she attains majority within the period of 3 years from the date of death of the government employee. 
• Further, reliance was also placed on the “Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006” which did not contain a provision for providing a job under ex-gratia scheme. 
• The Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court in 2009 which was dismissed resulting in the present appeal. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The argument put forward before the Court was that prior to 22nd March 1999 benefit of appointment was granted on attaining the age of majority irrespective of the time lapsed from the date of death of the parent and hence not providing the same in the present facts would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• The Court held the following on the above points: 
  • The benefit was granted prior to coming into force of the instructions. 
  • The Court held that if some wrong benefit has been conferred or some benefit contrary to the scheme has been conferred it would not bestow a right upon others to claim it as right to equality by reference to Article 14 of COI. 
• The Court while analyzing the purpose of compassionate appointment held that the purpose of these policies is to give immediate succor to the family. 
• Thus, in the present facts the Court held that the period of three years as laid down from the date of death of employee is not illogical or unjustified. 
• Also, it was held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right. 
• Finally, in the present facts the Court held that it would be just and reasonable that one opportunity is granted to the widow of the deceased government employee and the mother of the appellant to make a representation for exercising her option for grant of lump sum ex-gratia compensation.

What is Compassionate Appointment? 

About: 

• The basis and rationale of these appointments is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution. 
• The purpose of these policies is therefore, to give immediate succor to the family. 
• It is to be noted that such 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. 
• Compassionate appointments are, therefore, provided to bail out the family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for 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

Landmark Judgments: 

• Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another (2016): 
  • Division bench of Allahabad High Court struck down the word 'unmarried' qualifying 'daughter' in Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 
• State of U.P. and another v. Madhavi Mishra and others (2021): 
  • The Allahabad High Court held that a married daughter cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. 
• Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and another v. V. Somyashree, (2021): 
  • Supreme Court summarized the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under: - 
    • That the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; 
    • That no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; 
    • The appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; 
    • appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling The norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy; 
    • The norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. 
• The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022): 
  • In this case Supreme Court observed that, a married daughter of the deceased employee, cannot be considered dependent on her deceased mother, especially after a significant period of time had passed since the death of the employee.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot claim equal treatment based on an illegal benefit granted to someone else, emphasizing that Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. The case involved a petitioner seeking a compassionate appointment after the Haryana Government rejected his claim due to a time-bar under the 1999 policy. The petitioner argued that others in similar situations had been granted appointments despite being time-barred, but the Court upheld the rejection, citing the need to adhere to legal policies. 

What was the Background of Tinku v. State of Haryana Case? 

• Jai Prakash, a constable in Haryana Police, died while on duty on 22nd November 1997, along with another constable named Balwan Singh. 
• At the time of his father's death, the appellant (Jai Prakash's son) was only seven years old, and the prevailing policy dated 8th May 1995, provided for ex-gratia appointments for Class III and IV posts. 
• While Balwan Singh's widow received a compassionate appointment as a constable, Jai Prakash's wife, being illiterate, applied for compassionate appointment for her minor son instead of herself. 
• The Director General of Police, Haryana, through a letter dated 15th April 1998, directed that the appellant's name be entered in the Minor's Register No. 47, indicating the intention to reserve a post for him. 
• Upon attaining majority on 10th October 2008, the appellant approached the DGP with a representation for appointment under the ex-gratia scheme, supported by his mother's representation. 
• The DGP rejected the claim on 28th April 2009, citing those 11 years had passed since the father's death, making it time-barred under the 1999 government instructions which required minors to attain majority within three years of the employee's death. 
• Following this rejection, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court in 2009, invoking the principle of promissory estoppel based on the earlier communications received from the authorities. 
• After the High Court dismissed his petition, he filed an intra-court appeal, which was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are not a vested right or a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness; rather, it's an exception to the general rule of appointment that requires proper advertisement and selection process. 
• The Court articulated that compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate succor to families facing sudden financial destitution due to the loss of their sole breadwinner and must be subject to the requirements laid down in the applicable policy, instructions, or rules. 
• The Court held that in the absence of any policy, instruction, or rule providing for compassionate appointment, such appointment cannot be granted, emphasizing the necessity of statutory backing for such claims. 
• The Court observed that the three-year limitation period from the date of death for putting forth a claim by a dependent, including attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions, cannot be deemed unjustified or illogical. 
• The Court firmly established that Article 14's equality principle is rooted in positive law and can only be invoked to enforce claims having legal sanctity, not to perpetuate irregularities or illegalities. 
• The Court declared that wrongful conferment of benefits on certain individual's contrary to the scheme does not create a right for others to claim similar benefits under Article 14 of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that entertaining claims based on previous irregular benefits would be against the tenets of justice and would lead to anarchy and lawlessness. 
• The Court noted that equity cannot be extended to confer benefits or advantages without legal basis or justification, even if similar benefits were wrongly granted to others in the past. 
• The Court maintained that issuing directions to perpetuate illegalities would not only contravene justice but would also undermine its fundamental ethos, making the law a casualty in the process. 

What is Article 14 of Indian Constitution? 

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: 
  • The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 
• Equality Before Law: 
  • It is a negative concept that ensures the absence of special privileges in favor of any person. 
  • No person is above the law, regardless of their status, rank, or position. 
  • Everyone is subject to the ordinary law of the land and amenable to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. 
• Equal Protection of Laws: 
  • It is a positive concept that ensures equal treatment in equal circumstances. 
  • Similar situations must be treated alike. 
  • Different situations can be treated differently if there is reasonable classification. 
• Reasonable Classification Test: 
  • Any classification made under Article 14 must pass two tests: a) The classification must be based on intelligible differentia b) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved 
• Scope of Application: 
  • Applies to both citizens and non-citizens. 
  • Binds both legislative and executive actions. 
  • Protects against arbitrary state action. 
• Exceptions/Limitations: 
  • Does not mandate absolute equality or identical treatment in all cases. 
  • Permits reasonable classification based on rational grounds. 
  • Special provisions for certain classes (like women, children, SC/ST) are not violative of Article 14. 
• Modern Interpretation: 
  • Includes prohibition against arbitrary action. 
  • Encompasses the principle of non-discrimination. 
  • Requires any state action to be fair, reasonable, and not arbitrary. 
• Judicial Application: 
  • Courts can strike down laws that create unreasonable classifications. 
  • Acts as a guarantee against arbitrary legislation and executive actions. 
  • Ensures rational and non-discriminatory treatment by the State. 
• Fundamental Right: 
  • Forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 
  • Cannot be suspended even during emergency. 
  • Directly enforceable in courts. 

When can Article 14 of the Constitution Be Invoked? 

• Legal Standing Requirements: 
  • Direct impact/injury must be shown. 
  • State action must be involved. 
  • Can be invoked by any person (citizen or non-citizen) through writ petitions under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Courts). 
• Grounds for Challenge: 
  • Discriminatory laws or state actions. 
  • Arbitrary administrative decisions. 
  • Unreasonable classification. 
  • Violation of principles of natural justice. 
  • Different treatment of similarly situated persons. 
• Burden and Evidence: 
  • Petitioner must prove prima facie case of discrimination. 
  • Must demonstrate unequal treatment of equals. 
  • Should establish absence of reasonable classification. 
  • Clear violation must be shown with specific evidence. 
• Limitations: 
  • Cannot be invoked against private actions. 
  • Not available for claiming equality in illegality. 
  • Cannot challenge valid classifications. 
  • Not applicable where special provisions exist for protected classes. 
• Legal Tests Applied: 
  • Traditional reasonable classification test (intelligible differentia and rational nexus). 
  • Modern arbitrariness test (manifest arbitrariness and unreasonableness). 
  • Fair procedure test. 
• Available Remedies: 
  • Declaration of unconstitutionality. 
  • Striking down discriminatory provisions. 
  • Mandamus for equal treatment. 
  • Prohibition against discriminatory action. 
  • Compensation in appropriate cases.