New Delhi: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right to get a government job as it is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday while rejecting the plea of ​​a man whose police father died in action in 1997. , when the petitioner was seven years old. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih said that no direction can be issued asking the state to perpetuate any illegality in favor of a person or group of individuals contrary to the policy in question. Writing the judgment for the tribunal, Justice Masih said that compassionate appointments are meant to resolve urgent financial difficulties at the time of death of a family member and are not a right that can be claimed after a long period of time. “So far as compassionate appointment is sought to be claimed as a vested right to appointment, it is sufficient to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee dying in harness, which is to be freely given to the person under under maintenance. of control or to undertake a process of selection “It is an appointment which is granted on the basis of proper and strict examination of various parameters provided with the intention of helping a family to come out of a family. sudden pecuniary financial shortfall to help him out of the emergent emergency where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving him helpless and perhaps penniless,” the ruling said. It is said that the compassionate appointment is therefore provided to save a family of a deceased employee who is facing extreme financial hardship.

“This shall, in any event, be subject to the applicant fulfilling the requirements laid down in the policy, instructions or rules for such compassionate appointment,” the statement said. The very idea of ​​equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is a concept clothed in law-based positivity and can be invoked to enforce a claim that has the sanctity of law.

Petitioner Tinku’s father Constable Jai Prakash died alongside an officer while on duty in 1997. Tinku was only seven at the time and his mother, who was illiterate, could not apply for compassionate appointment for herself. Instead, she requested that her son’s name be placed on the “Juvenile Registry” with the understanding that he could be considered for a position upon reaching adulthood. In 1998, the Haryana Director General of Police issued instructions for Tinku’s name to be registered, suggesting a future possibility of employment. However, by the time Tinku applied for a job in 2008, after reaching the age of majority, 11 years had passed since his father’s death. The authorities rejected his claim on the grounds that Haryana’s 1999 guidelines introduced a three-year limit for such claims after the death of an employee. A single-judge bench as well as a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected his plea. The apex court upheld the decision, agreeing with earlier High Court rulings that the compassionate appointment policy is meant to meet immediate financial needs and cannot be invoked as a guaranteed right after a significant delay. While rejecting the petitioner’s appointment application, the court provided potential relief to his family by allowing his mother to file a representation with the competent authority for a lump sum ex-gratia payment. The court ordered that the plea be considered within six weeks, adding that if the compensation is further delayed, interest will be charged from the date of the plea.