- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Another v. B. Kishore .
Factual and Procedural Background
K. Janaki, employed as a Senior Accountant in the Directorate of Postal Accounts, Madras, died on 1-9-1993 while giving birth to her second child. Her husband (the respondent) initially secured her death-cum-retirement gratuity of Rs 71,000 and a monthly family pension of Rs 2,998 after prevailing over a rival claim by the deceased’s mother.
On 11-1-1994 the respondent sought a compassionate appointment, but the department deferred consideration until the monetary claims were settled. After payment, the authorities required proof of his SSLC qualification. A renewed representation dated 9-7-1996 was ultimately rejected by the Circle Selection Committee on 26-2-1998 on the ground that the respondent was “not in indigent circumstances.”
The respondent challenged this decision in OA No. 610 of 1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench; the OA was dismissed on 16-7-1998. He then filed Writ Petition No. 12225 of 1998 before the Madras High Court. A Division Bench directed the appellants (Union of India & others) to include his name in the waiting list for compassionate appointments. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether indigence is an essential pre-condition under the Central Government’s scheme for compassionate appointments.
- Whether the respondent satisfied the eligibility criteria—particularly financial distress—when his case was considered.
- Whether the High Court erred in directing inclusion of the respondent’s name in the compassionate appointment waiting list despite his age and financial status.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| SBI v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 | Compassionate appointment is an exception, not a normal mode of recruitment; no vested right exists outside the governing scheme. | Relied upon to reaffirm that compassionate appointment is contingent on the scheme’s conditions, notably financial distress, and is not automatic or hereditary. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misconstrued the compassionate appointment scheme. Indigence of the deceased employee’s family is the first and indispensable requirement.
2. Referring to the 9-10-1998 Office Memorandum consolidating the scheme, the Court highlighted:
- The object: to relieve families “in penury and without any means of livelihood”.
- Eligibility clause: appointment may be granted only where “the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance”.
- Vacancy limitation: only up to 5 % of Group C/D direct-recruitment posts may be reserved for such appointments.
3. On the facts, the respondent had already received substantial gratuity and pension benefits and admitted to having spent four years abroad seeking employment. The Court found these circumstances incompatible with a claim of destitution.
4. An additional factual impediment was the respondent’s age: records indicated he was 58 years old in 1998, making him well past the age of superannuation when the High Court issued its direction.
5. In light of the statutory scheme, the factual absence of indigence, and the respondent’s age, the High Court’s order was declared legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Order Set Aside; Appeal Allowed. The Supreme Court quashed the Madras High Court’s direction to include the respondent in the compassionate appointment waiting list. No costs were awarded.
Implications: The judgment reinforces that compassionate appointments are strictly conditioned on demonstrable financial destitution and cannot be treated as a hereditary right or employment reservation. It also underscores that age and vacancy limits remain applicable, thereby preserving the constitutionally mandated principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16.
Aftab Alam, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. By the judgment and order coming under appeal, the High Court directed the appellants to include the name of the respondent in the list of candidates waiting for appointment under the scheme of “compassionate appointments”.
2. The wife of the respondent, K. Janaki died on 1-9-1993, while giving birth to their second child. At that time she was working as a Senior Accountant in the Office of the Directorate of Postal Accounts, Madras. On 21-9-1993, the respondent made an application for payment of her death-cum-terminal dues. A rival claim was raised by the mother of the deceased but the respondent was able to obtain the succession certificate and on that basis he got payment of a sum of Rs 71,000 as death-cum-retirement gratuity of his deceased wife, in addition to a sum of Rs 2998 per month as family pension.
3. On 11-1-1994, the respondent made the request for compassionate appointment but he was informed by the departmental authorities concerned that his claim for compassionate appointment would be considered only after the settlement of the rival claims for payment of the death-cum-terminal dues of K. Janaki. After payment of the monetary dues to the respondent, his claim for appointment on compassionate basis was taken up and he was asked to submit proof of passing the SSLC examination.
4. On 9-7-1996, the respondent made another representation for appointment on compassionate grounds. His case was finally considered by the Circle Selection Committee and he was informed by the letter dated 26-2-1998, that he was not found entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds because he was not considered to be “in indigent circumstances”.
5. The respondent challenged the decision of the Circle Selection Committee before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in OA No. 610 of 1998. The Tribunal dismissed the OA by order dated 16-7-1998. Against the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent went to the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 12225 of 1998. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition with the direction to the appellants to include his name in the list of candidates waiting for appointment on compassionate basis.
6. The High Court in the judgment coming under appeal observed as follows:
“In deserving cases even when there is an earning member in the family, compassionate appointment may be offered, if the family is found to be in distress, with the prior approval of the Secretary of the department concerned.”
It went on to say:
“The scheme, therefore, does not lay emphasis on the indigency as a criterion for withholding or offering compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is to be made as a result of the death of the deceased official and when his/her family is in immediate need of assistance.”
(emphasis added)
It further said:
“Admittedly, there is a young son who has to be looked after and brought up. It cannot, therefore, be said that the family is not in need of income. The fact that the family receives pension is also no ground to decline appointment (sic) nowhere provides that in case where the family is paid pension (sic).”
7. On going through the judgment passed by the High Court, it is evident that it is based on a complete misconception about the scheme of compassionate appointments. Contrary to the High Court's observation, indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of “compassionate appointment”. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succour to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a state of destitution. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependants of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
8. In SBI v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661, elucidating the nature of the scheme of compassionate appointments this Court observed:
“8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant.”
9. The Central Government issued revised and consolidated instructions in connection with the scheme of compassionate appointments under the Central Government vide Office Memorandum dated 9-10-1998. Clause 1 of the office memorandum describes the object of the scheme as under:
“The object of the scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependant family member of a government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood to relieve the family of the government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”
(emphasis added)
10. Clause 5 lays down the eligibility criteria and provides as follows:
“(a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and
(b) The applicant for compassionate appointment shall be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules.”
(emphasis added)
11. Clause 7 deals with availability of vacancies and sub-clause (b) provides as follows:
“(b) Compassionate appointments can be made up to a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group C or Group D posts. The appointing authority may hold back 5% of vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct recruitment through the Staff Selection Commission or otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on compassionate grounds.”
12. In the writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court it was stated that he was unemployed. It was further stated that in August 1988, one of his friends took him to Singapore in search of employment. But there too the respondent was unable to find a “lucrative job”. He came back to India after staying there for about four years in 1992. From the writ petition it appears that though the respondent might have been struggling for financial upliftment, he certainly cannot be described as an indigent or destitute.
13. The case of the respondent clearly did not come under the revised and consolidated scheme formulated by the Office Memorandum dated 9-10-1998, that had come into force when his case came up for consideration before the High Court. Even otherwise and without any reference to the Office Memorandum dated 9-10-1998, the case of the respondent does not meet or satisfy the basic object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds. The High Court was, therefore, in error in passing the impugned order.
14. It further appears that an important and relevant fact was completely missed out in considering the respondent's claim for appointment on compassionate basis. From the records it appears that in the verification appended to his OA before the Tribunal he gave his age as 58 years in June 1998. Unless his age is wrongly stated in the verification to the OA, he would be 54 years of age when he made the application for compassionate appointment and 61 years old when the High Court allowed his writ petition. In other words, he was already beyond the age of superannuation and there was no question of his appointment on compassionate ground or on any other grounds.
15. In light of the discussions made above, the order coming under appeal is wholly unsustainable. It is set aside. The appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.
Alert