Supreme Court of India
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR. versus P. VENKATESH on 1 March 2019
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.[2019] 2 S.C.R. 978
A
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
P. VENKATESH
(Civil Appeal No. 2425 of 2019)
B
MARCH 01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDHEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service law:
Compassionate appointment – Claim of – Delay of over aCdecade in raising a claim by son of the deceased governmentemployee– Effect of – Held: Essence of the claim of compassionateappointment lies in the immediacy of the need – Recourse to thetribunal suffered from a delay of over a decade in the first instance– Staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providingDcompassionate appointment – Thus, the claim of compassionateappointment is rejected – Judgment of the High Court which hadallowed the claim is set aside – Delay/laches.
Administration of justice:
Speedy disposal of cases – ‘Dispose of the representation’Emantra – Effect of – Held: Is increasingly permeating the judicialprocess in the High Courts and the tribunals – Such orders maymake for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdenedadjudicatory institutions – However, they do no service to the causeof justice – Litigant is back again before the court, having incurredFattendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Compassionate appointment, is intended toenable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisiswhich is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while inGharness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of theneed. It is evident that even the first recourse to the CentralAdministrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years afterthe death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set ofrepresentations had been rejected in 1997. The tribunal, H
unfortunately, passed a succession of orders calling upon theappellants to consider and then re-consider the representationsfor compassionate appointment. After the Government rejectedthe representation in 2007, it was only in 2010 that the tribunalwas moved again, with the same result. These successive ordersof tribunal for re-consideration of the representation cannotobliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the tribunal forcompassionate appointment over a decade after the death of thedeceased employee. This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantrais increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courtsand the tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easydisposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But,they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is backagain before the Court, as this case shows, having incurredattendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. Thiswould have been obviated by calling for a counter in the firstinstance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. By the time,the High Court issued its direction on 9 August 2016, nearlytwenty one years had elapsed since the date of the death of theemployee. [Para 8][981-D-H; 982-A]
1.2 The recourse to the tribunal suffered from a delay ofover a decade in the first instance. This staleness of the claimtook away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment.The claim was liable to be rejected on that ground and ought tohave been so rejected. The judgment of the High Court isunsustainable and is set aside. The judgment of the tribunaldismissing the Original Application is upheld. [Paras 11, 12][982-G; 983-A]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC
138 – referred to
Case Law Reference
referred toPara 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2425of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2016 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 4598 of 2014.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AMs. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Dhruv Pall, Ms.Bhavana Duhoon, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the Appellants.
Aravindh S., Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.B
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras,by its judgment dated 9 August 2016, issued a mandamus, while settingaside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and directed theCappellants to grant appointment on a compassionate basis to the respondentwithin a period of three months from the date of the order.
3. The father of the respondent, who was working in the UnionMinistry of Information and Broadcasting, died on 25 May 1996. Thewidow of the deceased employee made a representation forDcompassionate appointment. On 3 January 1997, the representationsubmitted by her was rejected. Thereafter, a fresh representation wasmade, which was considered and rejected in the Minutes of a Meetingheld on 1 July 1999, which considered similar requests by several otheremployees.
4. In 2007, the respondent initiated proceedings[1] before the MadrasBench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its orderdated 26 June 2007, directed the appellants to consider the representationof the respondent dated 14 February 2006 by a speaking order. The OAwas disposed of. Accordingly, on 13 November 2007, a speaking orderwas passed rejecting the representation.
E
F
5. The respondent then filed another OA[2] before the Tribunal onwhich an order was passed on 16 March 2011 directing the appellants todispose of the representation after re-consideration. Again, when theclaim for compassionate appointment was rejected on 25 August 2011,the respondent moved the Tribunal in a third OA[3]. The Tribunal dismissedGthe OA by an order dated 30 April 2013, holding that the claimant wasnot eligible under the Scheme[4] under which the maximum period forwhich the name of a candidate for compassionate appointment could bekept for consideration was three years.
1OA 430 of 2007
2OA 1389 of 2010
H3OA 183 of 20124DOP&T OM No. 14014/3/2011 - ESST(D) dated 26.07.2012
6. Following the order of the Tribunal, the respondent filed a WritPetition before the High Court in which the impugned order has beenpassed, setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal and granting amandamus for appointment on a compassionate basis. The High Courtobserved, after perusing the record, that though the representation hadbeen rejected on the ground that the elder brother of the respondent wasgainfully employed, as a matter of fact, his salary certificate indicatedthat he was working on a daily wage basis.
7. We have heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Aravindh S.,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
8. The primary difficulty in accepting the line of submissions, whichweighed with the High Court, and were reiterated on behalf of therespondent in these proceedings, is simply this: Compassionateappointment, it is well-settled, is intended to enable the family of adeceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result ofthe death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claimlies in the immediacy of the need. If the facts of the present case areseen, it is evident that even the first recourse to the Central AdministrativeTribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death of the employee.In the meantime, the first set of representations had been rejected on 3January 1997. The Tribunal, unfortunately, passed a succession of orderscalling upon the appellants to consider and then re-consider therepresentations for compassionate appointment. After the Union Ministryof Information and Broadcasting rejected the representation on 13November 2007, it was only in 2010 that the Tribunal was moved again,with the same result. These successive orders of Tribunal for re-consideration of the representation cannot obliterate the effect of theinitial delay in moving the Tribunal for compassionate appointment overa decade after the death of the deceased employee. This ‘dispose of therepresentation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process inthe High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quickor easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But,they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back againbefore the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costsand suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviatedby calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality A
B
C
DEF
G
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
Ato the dispute. By the time, the High Court issued its direction on 9August 2016, nearly twenty one years had elapsed since the date of thedeath of the employee.
In Umesh Kumar NagpalVs. State of Haryana5, this Courtheld thus:B
“2...The whole object of granting compassionate employment isthus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The objectis not to give a member of such family a post much less a post forpost held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of anemployee in harness does not entitle his family to such source ofClivelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned hasto examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision ofemployment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that ajob is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The postsDin Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual andmanual categories and hence they alone can be offered oncompassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, ofthe financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”
Bearing in mind the above principles, this Court held:E
“6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannotbe granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must bespecified in the rules. The consideration for such employment isnot a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.The object being to enable the family to get over the financialFcrisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner,the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offeredwhatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”
9. The recourse to the Tribunal suffered from a delay of over adecade in the first instance. This staleness of the claim took away theGvery basis of providing companssionate appointment. The claim wasliable to be rejected on that ground and ought to have been so rejected.The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable.
10. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugnedjudgment and order of the High Court. In consequence, we affirm thejudgment of the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application. There shallbe no order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.
983
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H