2019 (4) TMI 1403 - SC - Indian Laws

Compassionate appointment - HELD THAT - The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. If the facts of the present case are seen, it is evident that even the first recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set of representations had been rejected on 3 January 1997. The Tribunal, unfortunately, passed a succession of orders calling upon the appellants to consider and then re-consider the representations for compassionate appointment. The recourse to the Tribunal suffered from a delay of over a decade in the first instance. This staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providing companssionate appointment. The claim was liable to be rejected on that ground and ought to have been so rejected. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compassionate appointment eligibility and delay in seeking relief.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the High Court of Judicature at Madras issued a mandamus for compassionate appointment, which was challenged in the Supreme Court. The primary issue before the Court was the eligibility for compassionate appointment and the delay in seeking relief. The deceased employee's family sought compassionate appointment after his death in 1996, with multiple representations being made and rejected over the years.

The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is intended to help the family overcome the immediate crisis caused by the death of the employee. It noted that the first recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal was made in 2007, eleven years after the employee's death, and subsequent delays followed. The Court highlighted that the successive orders for reconsideration by the Tribunal did not negate the initial delay in seeking relief. It criticized the trend of repeated reconsiderations leading to prolonged legal processes, causing inconvenience and costs to litigants.

Referring to established legal principles, the Court reiterated that compassionate employment cannot be granted after an unreasonable period. It emphasized that the purpose is to assist the family during the financial crisis following the employee's death. The Court concluded that the delay in seeking relief in this case had rendered the claim stale, thereby justifying the rejection of the compassionate appointment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and affirmed the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Original Application. No costs were awarded in the matter.