Object Of Compassionate Appointment Is To Provide Immediate Succour To The Family Of Deceased: Supreme Court Set Aside Order Allowing Relief After More Than 10 Years

The Top Court in its judgment dated April 9, 2021, set aside the judgment of Jharkhand High Court which allowed compassionate appointment of the Respondent’s son, after a lapse of more than ten years.

A Division Bench of Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice Ravindra Bhat, while allowing the appeal, observed, “The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the Respondent’s husband had gone missing. As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent’s son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.”

It was added that although the reasons provided by the employer for denying compassionate appointment was unsustainable, the bench is convinced of the fact that the relief sought by the Respondent cannot be granted at this point of time.

Reliance was placed on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138.

Essentially, the claim was turned down not on merits but on the principle of Vigilantibus Non Dormentibus Jura Subveniunt.

Respondent’s husband was missing since 03.10.2002. A complaint regarding it was registered with officer in charge, Hazaribagh.

Appellant 1 issued charge-sheet against the Respondent’s husband for desertion of duty since 01.10.2002, following which an enquiry was conducted and he was terminated from services with effect from 21.09.2004.

A suit was filed by the respondent in the Court of Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh seeking civil death of her missing husband which was disposed by judgment dated 13.07.2012.

On 17.01.2013, a representation was made by the Respondent seeking appointment for her son on Compassionate Grounds which was rejected by the Appellant on the ground that the Respondent’s husband was already dismissed from service and therefore such request cannot be facilitated.

Challenging the aforementioned decision, the Respondent moved a petition before the High Court, which was allowed by a judgment dated 03.08.2015. It was held that the proceedings leading to termination of Respondent’s husband from service cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and therefore the order of termination is quashed. Further, the rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment of her son was also quashed and the first appellant was directed to consider the claim afresh.

Appellants yet again rejected the representations by order dated 03.08.2016, noting that (1) Respondent’s son was not entitled to seek compassionate appointment as the respondent was in employment and they were her dependents (2) A decision was taken in the meeting of Directors (Personnel) that compassionate appointment cannot be provided to the dependents of missing employees (Deemed death).

The said order was set aside by the High Court by order dated 16.08.2018.

Aggrieved thereby, Appellants approached the Top Court contending that Respondent’s husband was missing since 2002, suit for declaration of civil death was moved in 2009 and an application for compassionate appointment was made after more than 10 years, in 2013.

Case Title: Central Coalfields Limited v. Smt. Parden Oraon | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 897 of 2021

Authored By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao