- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Bhagwan Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
Ram Singh, a Senior Clerk in the Northern Railway, died on 12 September 1972, leaving his wife, two adult sons, and the present respondent who was then a 12-year-old minor. The respondent completed his Higher Secondary Examination in 1983 and, claiming to have attained majority in 1980/1981, sought employment in the Railways on compassionate grounds. His requests were rejected on 21 September 1987, 19 June 1990, and 11 June 1991 on the grounds of limitation, inapplicability of rules, presence of two adult brothers at the time of the employee’s death, and absence of financial distress in the family.
The respondent challenged these rejections before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur (OA No. 204 of 1992). On 22 February 1993, the Tribunal quashed the refusals and directed the Railway Authorities to reconsider the request and appoint the respondent if found suitable within three months. The Union of India and the Northern Railway appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court condoned the delay, granted leave, and adjudicated the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a request for compassionate appointment made nearly twenty years after the employee’s death falls within the permissible time-frame prescribed by applicable Railway rules and judicial principles.
- Whether the existence of two adult sons and the absence of demonstrable financial distress at the time of death disentitle the respondent to compassionate appointment.
- The scope of the Tribunal’s power: whether it can direct grant of employment or only order reconsideration in accordance with rules.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments (Union of India & Northern Railway)
- Relied on Rule V of the Railway Board’s communication dated 12 December 1990, which stipulates that compassionate appointments should ordinarily be made within five years of the event, and in no case beyond ten years.
- The rule further requires the request to be filed within one year of the applicant attaining majority; the respondent failed to do so.
- The family was not in financial distress and had two adult sons capable of supporting it; hence the purpose of compassionate appointment—immediate relief—was not served.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Contended that the 12 December 1990 rules were prospective and inapplicable because Ram Singh died in 1972 and the initial request pre-dated the circular.
- Acknowledged the five-year norm but argued that it could be relaxed in exceptional cases.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468 | Compassionate appointment should be provided without delay to mitigate hardship. | Used to emphasise that delay defeats the purpose of the scheme. |
| Phoolwati v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689 | Reinforced the need for immediacy in compassionate appointments. | Cited to support the proposition that such appointments are an exception meant for urgent relief. |
| Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 | Laid down guiding principles: appointment is to tide over sudden crisis; financial condition must warrant it; not an alternate avenue of employment. | Relied upon to show that the respondent’s family was not in crisis and therefore not entitled. |
| State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, (1994) 4 SCC 448 | Court/Tribunal may only direct consideration in accordance with rules, not grant appointment outright. | Invoked to hold that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process, justified only to provide immediate financial relief to families left in penury upon the death of a breadwinner. Noting that:
- Ram Singh died in 1972 and the first documented application was rejected in 1987, well beyond the five-year limit.
- The family had two adult sons and the mother, none of whom sought employment immediately, indicating absence of financial emergency.
- The respondent made the last application nearly 20 years after the death and at age 33.
the Court held the claim to be patently barred. Citing the precedents, it underscored that delay negates the very object of the scheme and that courts or tribunals cannot mandate appointment contrary to the rules. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order directing reconsideration with a bias toward appointment was declared illegal and beyond its jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Tribunal’s order dated 22-2-1993 set aside.
Direct Effect: The respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment stands rejected, and no further reconsideration is mandated. The parties are to bear their own costs.
Broader Implications: The decision reinforces existing jurisprudence that compassionate appointments must be sought and granted promptly, within prescribed time-limits, and only where the family faces genuine financial distress. No new legal principle is created, but the ruling reaffirms strict adherence to the exceptional and time-sensitive nature of compassionate employment.
K.S Paripoornan, J.— Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The Union of India, respondent in OA No. 204 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur and the Railway Authorities, Northern Railway, have filed this appeal against the Order of the Tribunal dated 22-2-1993. The respondent herein as petitioner filed OA No. 204 of 1992 praying for quashing the orders denying him employment on compassionate grounds and further prayed that appointment may be given to him. The Tribunal by the impugned Order quashed the orders assailed before it and directed the respondents to reconsider the application of the respondent/applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds and provide him with an appointment, if he is otherwise found suitable within three months. Hence, this appeal by the Union of India and the Railway Authorities, Northern Railway.
3. We heard Dr Anand Prakash, Senior Advocate who appeared for the appellants and Mr Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for the respondent. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. One Ram Singh, a Senior Clerk in the Railways died on 12-9-1972 leaving behind his wife, two major sons and the respondent who was a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent passed the Higher Secondary Examination in 1983. Stating that he attained majority in 1980/1981, he sought appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected by orders dated 21-9-1987, 19-6-1990 and 11-6-1991. The Authorities took the view that the application was beyond the period of limitation (five years), that the case of the respondent was not covered by the relevant rules, that at the time of demise of Ram Singh, there were two major sons of the deceased who did not seek employment and that the family was not in financial distress. The Central Administrative Tribunal referred to the last order dated 11-6-1991 wherein it was stated that since there were two brothers of the applicant who were majors at the time of demise of the father, an appointment on compassionate grounds could not be considered and held that the other reasons stated earlier — bar of limitation and that the respondent will not be covered by the rule, have been given a go-bye. It was further held that the rejection of the application of the respondent simply on the ground that two elder brothers of the applicant/respondent, who were majors, were available at the time of the death of the father, was unjustified and, therefore, the application of the respondent should be reconsidered and an appointment on compassionate grounds should be provided, if the respondent is otherwise qualified.
4. Appellants' counsel laid stress on Rule V contained in the communication dated 12-12-1990 and contended that normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event and, in no case, it should be more than 10 years from the date of the death. Further condition specified in the said communication is that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be received by the Railway Administration as and when the applicant becomes a major, say, within a period of one year. According to the respondent, the above rules will not apply since Ram Singh died in 1972 and the respondent applied before the rules dated 12-12-1990 came into force. Counsel for the respondent contended that it is true that normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event, but this period can be relaxed in exceptional cases.
5. It is common ground, that normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event entitling the eligible persons to be appointed. In this case Ram Singh died on 12-9-1972. He left behind his wife, two major sons and the respondent, a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent attained majority in 1980/1981. There is no material on record to show that the respondent applied within 5 years of “the event” or within one year from the date of his attaining majority. As early as 21-9-1987 an application filed by the respondent was dismissed. The subsequent applications filed in that behalf were dismissed on 19-6-1990 and 11-6-1991. There is material on record to show that the respondent was aged 33 years at the time of making the application and the last application which was allowed by the Tribunal was one filed nearly 20 years after the death of Ram Singh. Patently the application is barred.
6. The facts of this case disclose that on the date when Ram Singh died (12-9-1972) he had, besides the respondent, who was a minor then, two major sons and a wife. The two major sons and the wife did not seek any appointment on compassionate grounds. As stated by this Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468, (1989) 11 ATC 878, (1989) 2 Scale 473, AIR 1989 SC 1976:
“… in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. The above decision was followed in Phoolwati v. Union of India 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689, (1991) 17 ATC 937, AIR 1991 SC 469. The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family. Matters which should be considered while giving an appointment in public services on compassionate grounds have been laid down by a Bench of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, (1994) 27 ATC 537 to the following effect:
“As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 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. …”
(emphasis supplied)
It is settled law, that even if the Court reaches the conclusion that the applicant has made out a case, all that the High Court or Administrative Tribunal can do, is only to direct the authority concerned to consider the claim of the applicant in accordance with relevant law or rules, if any. (See: State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali (1994) 4 SCC 448, (1994) 27 ATC 611.)
8. It is evident, that the facts in this case point out, that the plea for compassionate employment is not to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis or distress which resulted as early as September 1972. At the time Ram Singh died on 12-9-1972 there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. In this background, we are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in directing the Authorities to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds and to provide him with an appointment, if he is found suitable. We set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 22-2-1993. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert