Appointment on compassionate grounds, not a right, says Supreme Court
Contents News/Article Date: 4th October 2022
Relating to which Act: The Indian Succession Act, 1925; The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Type: A Bench of Justices M R Shah and Krishna Murari set aside the High Court verdict in its Order passed on Friday.
Pertains to: Employers and employees
Relevance of this news: Karma Management Global Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd is in the business of Payroll, Outsourcing, and Regulatory Compliances from its inception in 2004 and since then, has brought in a lot of efficiencies and technological upgradations with experts on its roll, to ease the hassles of Payroll Processing, Temp Staffing, On-boarding Management, Regulatory and Payroll compliances by providing customized solutions to all its elite clients.
Karma Global does a lot of legal and para-legal work including handling disputes and litigations for its hundreds of clients. Karma Management has now gained a tremendous advantage by forming a strategic alliance with S. D. Puri & Co. who are leading lawyers in this field doing work for corporates and industries. With the two Heads of Legal and Compliance shaking hands, they have now moved further to handle the work on a Pan India basis and thereby doubling its market share to over 50% at the pan India level.
Subject: Appointment on compassionate grounds, not a right, says Supreme Court
For greater details, appended below is the complete news item
Appointment on compassionate grounds, not a right says Supreme Court
Updated on Oct 04, 2022 06:57 AM IST
Job appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the Supreme Court has ruled while deciding the case of a daughter’s plea to be appointed 14 years after the death of her father in 1995.
Job appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the Supreme Court has ruled while deciding the case of a daughter’s plea to be appointed 14 years after the death of her father in 1995.
The woman’s father was an employee of Kerala-based Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. With more than 27 years have elapsed since the death, the court was adjudicating an appeal filed by the company challenging a decision of the Kerala high court on March 31 directing them to consider the daughter’s plea for compassionate employment.
A bench of justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari set aside the high court verdict in its order passed on Friday saying,
“The appointment on compassionate grounds is a concession and not a right.”
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in public services, the judges held, adding that such a concession is made to ensure that the dependants of a person dying in harness are not left in penury or without any means of livelihood.
The appeal filed by the company said that at the time when the respondent’s daughter’s father died in 1995, a compassionate appointment was not applicable to him as his wife was employed with the Kerala State Health Services Department. At that time, the daughter was a minor.
After 14 years, by when she turned a major and got married in 2013, the daughter claimed a compassionate appointment. The company rejected her application on February 12, 2018, on the grounds that her name was not included in the list of dependents. Further, she was informed that as a matter of policy, employment can be given to the widow or son or unmarried daughter of the deceased employee. She challenged the dismissal of her application before the Kerala high court.
The top court said,
“The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.”
A single-judge bench of the Kerala high court on January 22, 2021, directed the company to consider the daughter’s plea. When the company challenged this order before the division bench, it reiterated the order of the single-judge bench, forcing the company to seek redress before the top court.
Finding the two orders of the high court “unsustainable”, the top court said,
“If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/over 24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate grounds is provided.”
The bench noted that appointment on compassionate grounds provides an exception to the equal opportunity norm in matters of public employment. “Both the single judge as well as the division bench of the high court have committed a serious error in directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the high court are unsustainable,” the bench said.
