Compassionate Appointment Not a Vested Right, Rules Supreme Court

Supreme Court while considering the purpose of compassionate appointment (THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. DEBABRATA TIWARI & ORS. D.D. 03 March 2023) stated that it is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee who is the sole breadwinner. It is an exception to the regular procedure of recruitment and should only be used to achieve the stated objective. Compassionate appointments are not a vested right and cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time or after the crisis is over. The financial condition of the family at the time of the employee's death is the primary consideration. If there is a prolonged delay in considering an application for compassionate appointment, or the financial circumstances of the family have improved since the employee's death, then the claim may not be entertained.

The case concerns the claims of the heirs of employees of Burdwan, Ranaghat, and Habra Municipalities who died while in service, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to posts in the concerned municipalities. The case is about the entitlement of such persons to be considered for compassionate appointment and whether any scheme of the State Government supports their claim for compassionate appointment.

An enquiry committee was appointed by the Burdwan Municipality, which submitted a report following the criteria set in the West Bengal Municipal Employees' (Recruitment) Rules 2005, and approved a list of 62 eligible candidates for the purpose of recruitment in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts in the Municipality. The names of the Respondents were on the list.

The Chairman of the Burdwan Municipality forwarded the list of eligible candidates to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal, for approval of appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the Director of Local Bodies or the Government of West Bengal did not take any steps pursuant to the receipt of the list of candidates.

The Writ Petition was disposed of by an order directing the Director of Local Bodies to take a decision on the recommendation of the Chairman of the Municipality within a specified period. However, the Director of Local Bodies observed that he had no authority to consider the appointments under compassionate grounds in Urban Local Bodies, unless the policy in the matter was laid down by the State Government.

The case involves the appeal of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners against the High Court of Calcutta's decision to set aside the learned Single Judge's order of 5th July 2018. The decision was made in a batch of appeals being MAT 859 of 2018 with CAN 6137 of 2018 and connected matters. The Division Bench of the High Court directed the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality, and the concerned authority in Ranaghat and Habra Municipalities to consider the Respondents' application for appointment on compassionate grounds and identified the scheme under which the applications would have to be considered and decided.

The State of West Bengal is appealing a decision made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta regarding the appointment of certain employees on compassionate grounds. The state argues that the High Court's decision was based on an incorrect understanding of the law and facts, and that appointing the employees at this point, 17-18 years after their applications for compassionate appointment were made, would not further the purpose of the scheme. The state cites a previous court decision to support their argument that a significant gap between making an application for compassionate appointment and filing a writ petition to challenge inaction on the part of the government may result in a direction to consider the application not being issued. Additionally, the state argues that no scheme exists for compassionate appointment in municipalities, and therefore the High Court's decision to grant relief was erroneous. The state asserts that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be entertained only if the dependent(s) of the deceased employee are in compelling financial circumstances, which is not the case here. The state prays that the appeals be allowed and the High Court's judgment be set aside.

The main question is whether there exists a scheme in the State of West Bengal governing compassionate appointment for municipal employees who die in harness. If yes, it needs to be determined whether a direction issued several years after applications for compassionate appointment are filed, to consider and decide such applications, is in consonance with the object of the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment.

Supreme Court stated that State’s obligation in this regard, confined to its employees who die in harness, has given rise to schemes and rules providing for compassionate appointment of an eligible member of his family as an instance of providing immediate succor to such a family. Support for such a provision has been derived from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India, i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. 

Supreme Court laydown principles relate to compassionate appointment and are as follows:

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general provisions of appointment and must only be used to achieve the objective of enabling the family of the deceased to overcome sudden financial crisis.

Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment, but a benevolent scheme to ensure that dependents of the deceased are not deprived of livelihood.

Compassionate appointments are not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future.

It should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress, and it is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

In determining whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be considered, including the family's income, liabilities, terminal benefits, age, dependency, marital status, and income from any other source.

Supreme Court while considering the purpose of compassionate appointment stated that it is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee who is the sole breadwinner. It is an exception to the regular procedure of recruitment and should only be used to achieve the stated objective. Compassionate appointments are not a vested right and cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time or after the crisis is over. The financial condition of the family at the time of the employee's death is the primary consideration. If there is a prolonged delay in considering an application for compassionate appointment, or the financial circumstances of the family have improved since the employee's death, then the claim may not be entertained.

Supreme Court held that respondents-Writ Petitioners applied for compassionate appointment in 2005-2006, but no concrete step was taken by the authorities until 2013. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners approached the High Court only in 2015 after a delay of nearly ten years. The court held that the delay was too long and the sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost.

The court, however, reproached the authorities of the Appellant-State for the manner in which they dealt with applications for compassionate appointment, which resulted in prejudice to the families of many government employees dying in harness. The court emphasized that officials must act with utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding claims of compassionate appointment to ensure that the wholesome object of such a scheme is fulfilled.

Supreme Court held that Circular Nos. 301-Emp. to 303-Emp. dated 21st August 2002 introduced a scheme for compassionate appointments for dependents of employees who died while in service. Circular No. 301-Emp. identifies exempted categories for the purpose of the Act of 1999. Circular No. 302-Emp. reserves 30% of vacancies for persons belonging to exempted categories, while Circular No. 303-Emp. prescribes the procedure for filling vacancies reserved for exempted categories. The next notification, Circular No. 97-Emp. dated 6th June 2005, specifies criteria for people seeking appointments on compassionate grounds. Circular No. 142-Emp. dated 1st November 2007 clarifies that Circular No. 97-Emp. is not applicable to employees of local authorities. The decision for compassionate appointments should be in light of the policy holding the field at the time of the application.

The court held that Circular Nos. 301-Emp, 302-Emp, and 303-Emp. do not govern compassionate appointments for local authorities, and therefore applications for compassionate appointment for local authorities cannot be granted. Appeal Allowed.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. DEBABRATA TIWARI & ORS.