Applications for compassionate appointment must be decided within 6 months: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds must be considered and decided by the authorities at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications [Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and Others]..A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the purpose of such appointments is to ensure financial support to the family of a deceased employee. "Considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications," the Court said. The Court was hearing an appeal assailing the decision of the Orissa High Court which had refused to direct the State authorities to appoint the appellant on compassionate grounds..The father of the appellant, who was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department, passed away on January 2, 2010 while in service. The appellant applied for appointment as a Junior Clerk on compassionate ground under the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (1990 Rules) in July 2010 since his mother was unable to undertake a government job due to her medical condition.The application was not attended to by the Excise Department for five years. However, after five years, the Additional Secretary on September 9, 2016 asked the Collector to furnish a fresh report regarding the financial condition of the family of the deceased.Moreover, a report was also called from the mother of the appellant before the Medical Board for proper examination to ascertain whether her inability to perform the government job was continuingIt was stated the mother of the appellant was unfit for the government job and also said that the family income of the appellant from all sources was not in excess of ₹72,000 per annum.Notably, despite the above, the application of the appellant was kept pending by the authorities and before any decision could be taken on the same, the 1990 rules were replaced by the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules 2020 (2020 Rules).On April 26, 2021, the application of the appellant was sent to the Collector for taking necessary action under the newly framed 2020 Rules.Aggrieved by the application being considered under the 2020 Rules and not under the 1990 Rules, the appellant moved a writ petition before the Orissa High Court. The same was dismissed by observing that the claim should be considered as per the amended Rules that were prevalent at the time of consideration of the application and not the Rules that were prevalent on the date of death of the government servant.Aggrieved, the appellant moved the present appeal before the apex court. .The appellant argued that as per the decision of the Court in Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) and others v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (2021), the policy prevalent at the time when the application for compassionate ground was made should be applicable and not the subsequent scheme prevalent at the time of deciding the application.However, the respondents argued that as already laid down in the case of NC Santosh v. State of Karnataka (2020), the claim should be considered as per the amended Rules that were prevalent at the time of consideration of the application and not the Rules that were prevalent at the time of death of the government servant..The Supreme Court noted that there are conflicting views as to whether the scheme or rules in force on the date of death of the government servant would apply or the scheme or rules in force on the date of consideration of the application on compassionate grounds would apply.However, keeping the said issue aside, the Court in the instant case was of the view that the appellant shall be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as per the 1990 rules, which were applicable at the time when the deceased employee died, i.e., in the year 2010.In this backdrop, the Court observed:"In July 2010, the appellant applied for appointment on compassionate ground as a Junior Clerk under the 1990 Rules. ...it can be seen that there was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his application was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all throughout there was a delay on the part of the department/authorities, the appellant should not be made to suffer."Not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities, the Bench remarked.Therefore, noting that the appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities, the Court observed that the appellant shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules.The order of the High Court was, therefore, set aside. .The Bench also found it necessary to direct the authorities to consider and decide the applications for compassionate appointment at the earliest, within a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications."If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way," the Court observed..[Read Judgment]