Appointment on compassionate grounds not a matter of right: Supreme Court

New Delhi, Oct 04: The Supreme Court has said that job appointments on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The court was deciding on a plea by a daughter to be appointed 14 years after the death of her father in 1995.

The woman's father was an employee of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd, Kerala. The Supreme Court was adjudicating an appeal by the company which had challenged the order of the Kerala High Court on March 31 directing them to consider the plea by the daughter for employment on compassionate grounds.

A Bench comprising Justices M R Shah and Krishna Murari set aside the High Court's verdict and said that 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 and such a concession is made to ensure that the dependants of a person during in harness are not left in penury or without any means of livelihood the court said.

The company in its appeal said that at the time the respondent daughter's father died in 1995, compassionate appointment was not applicable to him as his wife was employed with the Kerala State Health Services Department. Moreover at the time the daughter was a minor, the company also said.

Fourteen years after her father's death the daughter got married in 2013, following which she claimed compassionate appointment. In 2018 her application was rejected on the ground that her name was not included in the list of dependants. She also informed that as a matter of policy, employment can be given to the widow or son or unmarried daughter of the deceased employee. She had challenged the same in the Kerala High Court.

"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," the Supreme Court held.

On January 22 2021 a single judge Bench of the Kerala High Court had directed the company to consider the plea made by the daughter. When the company challenged the order before a Division Bench, it confirmed the order of the single judge and directed the company to seek redressal before the Supreme Court.

"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 Supreme Court said.