APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND IS NOT A RIGHT OF A PERSON.

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

The very concept of giving a compassionate appoint is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of death of the bread winner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But it cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as bonanza and also a right to get an appoint in Government service.

Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered by Courts as a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi-government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.  Normally, therefore, State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances appointment on compassionate ground of dependents of deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve.   The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of sole bread winner.   It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment.

In ‘B. Vijyakumari Pillai, Bangalore – 560 049 V. Management of Indian Institute of Science, rep by its Registrar, Bangalore – 560 012’ – 2012-III-LLJ-627 (Kant) Sri Prabhakaran Pillai was appointed as a mechanic in the Indian Institute of Science originally on temporary basis and subsequently he was confirmed.  He expired during July 1991.  During his lifetime he married Smt. D. Vijayakumari Pillai and from the said marriage they had two children.  On the demise of her husband the petitioner, D. Vijayakumari Pillai submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. She was appointed as a temporary clerk in the Institution on 26.08.1991 on consolidated salary of Rs.1400/- and she worked upto May 1997. The management informed by order dated 07.05.1997 informed that her services were terminated. taxmanagementindia.com

Aggrieved against this order the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by filing petition under Sec. 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour court on evaluation and scrutiny of evidence held that the petitioner is a workman and the Institute was not justified in terminating the services of the petitioner and directed reinstatement to her original post with continuity of service and without back wages and consequential benefits.

The Institute raised the following grounds:

• The institution was started during 1901 as a Public Charitable Trust and it has been functioning as an autonomous body under the provisions of the scheme framed under the provisions of Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 and it is an institute for higher learning and research and it is a deemed university for the purposes of awarding degrees. As such the activity carried out by it cannot be termed as an activity which come under the definition of ‘industry’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act;
• At the time when employee, Shri Prabhakaran Pillai expired, there was no regular post and on account of immediate assistance she was appointed as a temporary employee and on account of her re-marriage to another person the need of assistance by way of appointment on ground of compassion vanished;
• Family pension was being paid to her children born to her first husband and she has also drawn family pension from the Institute;
• Penury of financial distress of Smt. Vijayakumari Pillai did not continue and wife of the deceased employee to claim appointment on compassionate ground is not a indefeasible right vested to her.

The Court held that appointment on compassionate ground is to enable immediate financial assistance to a family which has lost its bread winner and such appointment can never be a source of recruitment. Appointment, on compassionate ground is never considered as a right of a person.   In the normal course when the appointment is to be made it has to be in accordance with the recruitment rules prevalent and existing as otherwise it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, exception to the general rule of recruitment is traceable in the case of compassionate appointment. 

The Institute has adopted the rules of compassionate appointment as prevalent in Government of India. At the time the employee submitted application seeking compassionate appointment there was no vacancy available and claim of the family members of employees who had expired in harness prior to death of Prabhakaran Pillai and who were senior to him was pending consideration. This clearly shows that Smt. Vijayakumari Pillai was never appointed on compassionate grounds.

On 14.05.1993 the Institute issued a memo to the petitioner calling upon her to clarify her marital status to which she replied on 24.05.1993 declaring that she continued to be widow of the deceased employee. After that on 21.06.1993 another memo was issued to her that she suppressed the marital status. Again on 12.07.1993 another letter was issued. She vide her letter dated 15.07.1993 stated that the marriage has not still been legally solemnized. Thus she admitted her remarriage.  However she did not specify the date of marriage.  Thus penury or financial distress under which the family members of the deceased were placed at the time of death did not continue but got vanished or extinguished or evaporated by virtue of her remarriage to another person. Compassionate appointment being an appointment by deviating from the general recruitment rules and procedure it would be a concession in favour of dependents of a deceased employee in order to overcome the financial distress of the penury. If the family of the deceased employee has tied over the crisis for a considerable period as in this case where the widow has got remarried the claim of appointment on compassionate ground would cease to exist. There would be no necessity for consideration of a application on compassionate ground since said situation does not exist and exercising compassion cannot be endless. The High Court allowed the appeal in favour of the Institute and against the employee.