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.