2013 (8) TMI 1197 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal against a judgment upholding a directive for compassionate appointment under a scheme. The deceased's family member sought compassionate appointment after the death of a Class III employee. The Court emphasized that compassionate employment is not a right but an exception to alleviate financial distress. The Court cited Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, emphasizing the purpose of compassionate employment to assist the family during a crisis. The Court highlighted that compassionate employment should not be viewed as an alternative recruitment method and that delayed applications may not be entertained.Additionally, the Court referenced A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, stating that appointments made in contravention of established schemes/rules are illegal. The Court defined "vested right" as a fixed, accrued, settled, or absolute right not contingent on any condition precedent. The Court cited State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, emphasizing that eligibility for compassionate appointment depends on various factors, including financial conditions. The Court concluded that the impugned judgments were unsustainable in law and allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to apply under the new scheme for consideration within three months.In summary, the Court clarified the principles governing compassionate appointments, highlighting that such appointments are not automatic rights and must adhere to established schemes and eligibility criteria. The Court set aside the previous judgments and directed the respondent to apply under the new scheme for proper consideration within a specified timeframe.