1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2425 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) No.5810 of 2017)

THE GOVT. OF INDIA  & ANR.                  APPELLANT(s)

                         VERSUS

P. VENKATESH RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Leave granted.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at

Madras, by its judgment dated 9 August 2016, issued a

mandamus, while setting aside the order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, and directed the appellants to

grant  appointment  on  a  compassionate  basis  to  the

respondent within a period of three months from the date

of the order.

The father of the respondent, who was working in the

Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, died on

25 May 1996.  The widow of the deceased employee made a

representation  for  compassionate  appointment.   On  3

January  1997,  the  representation  submitted  by  her  was

rejected.  Thereafter, a fresh representation was made,

which was considered and rejected in the Minutes of a

Meeting held on 1 July 1999, which considered similar

2

requests by several other employees.  

In 2007, the respondent initiated proceedings1 before

the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Tribunal, by its order dated 26 June 2007, directed

the  appellants  to  consider  the  representation  of  the

respondent dated 14 February 2006 by a speaking order.

The  OA  was  disposed  of.   Accordingly,  on  13  November

2007,  a  speaking  order  was  passed  rejecting  the

representation.   

The  respondent  then  filed  another  OA2 before  the

Tribunal on which an order was passed on 16 March 2011

directing the appellants to dispose of the representation

after  re-consideration.   Again,  when  the  claim  for

compassionate appointment was rejected on 25 August 2011,

the respondent moved the Tribunal in a third OA3.  The

Tribunal  dismissed  the  OA  by  an  order  dated  30  April

2013, holding that the claimant was not eligible under

the Scheme4 under which the maximum period for which the

name of a candidate for compassionate appointment could

be kept for consideration was three years.

Following the order of the Tribunal, the respondent

filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in which the

impugned  order  has  been  passed,  setting  aside  the

judgment  of  the  Tribunal  and  granting  a  mandamus for

1  OA 430 of 2007 2  OA 1389 of 2010 3  OA 183 of 2012 4 DOP&T OM No.14014/3/2011 – ESST(D) dated 26.07.2012

3

appointment on a compassionate basis.  The High Court

observed,  after  perusing  the  record,  that  though  the

representation had been rejected on the ground that the

elder brother of the respondent was gainfully employed,

as a matter of fact, his salary certificate indicated

that he was working on a daily wage basis.

We have heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional

Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants

and Mr. Aravindh S., learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent.

The  primary  difficulty  in  accepting  the  line  of

submissions, which weighed with the High Court, and were

reiterated  on  behalf  of  the  respondent  in  these

proceedings, is simply this:  Compassionate appointment,

it is well-settled, is intended to enable the family of a

deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused

as  a  result  of  the  death  of  an  employee,  while  in

harness.  The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy

of the need.  If the facts of the present case are seen,

it is evident that even the first recourse to the Central

Administrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years

after the death of the employee.  In the meantime, the

first  set  of  representations  had  been  rejected  on  3

January  1997.   The  Tribunal,  unfortunately,  passed  a

succession  of  orders  calling  upon  the  appellants  to

consider  and  then  re-consider  the  representations  for

compassionate appointment.  After the Union Ministry of

4

Information and Broadcasting rejected the representation

on  13  November  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  the

initial delay in moving the Tribunal for compassionate

appointment over a decade after the death of the deceased

employee.  This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra is

increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High

Courts and the Tribunals.  Such orders may make for a

quick  or  easy  disposal  of  cases  in  overburdened

adjudicatory institutions.  But, they do no service to

the cause of justice.  The litigant is back again before

the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant

costs and suffered delays of the legal process.  This

would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the

first  instance,  thereby  resulting  in  finality  to  the

dispute.   By  the  time,  the  High  Court  issued  its

direction on 9 August 2016, nearly twenty one years had

elapsed since the date of the death of the employee.

In  Umesh  Kumar  Nagpal Vs.  State  of  Haryana  5,  this

Court held thus:

“2...The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further,

5 (1994) 4 SCC 138

5

mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied,  that  but  for  the  provision  of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible  member  of  the  family.  The  posts  in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non- manual and manual categories and hence they alone can  be  offered  on  compassionate  grounds,  the object  being  to  relieve  the  family,  of  the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.”

Bearing  in  mind  the  above  principles,  this  Court

held:

“6.  For  these  very  reasons,  the  compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

The recourse to the Tribunal suffered from a delay of

over a decade in the first instance.  This staleness of

the  claim  took  away  the  very  basis  of  providing

companssionate appointment.  The claim was liable to be

rejected  on  that  ground  and  ought  to  have  been  so

rejected.   The  judgment  of  the  High  Court  is

unsustainable.   

We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the

impugned  judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court.   In

6

consequence,  we  affirm  the  judgment  of  the  Tribunal

dismissing the Original Application.  There shall be no

order as to costs.

.............................J.  (DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD)

.............................J.  (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI MARCH 01, 2019

7

ITEM NO.54               COURT NO.12               SECTION XII

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2425 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) No.5810 of 2017)

THE GOVT. OF INDIA  & ANR.                  APPELLANT(s)

                         VERSUS

P. VENKATESH RESPONDENT(s)

Date : 01-03-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Pall, Adv.

                 Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. Aravindh S., AOR                      

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                               O R D E R

Leave granted.

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed

reportable  judgment.   There  shall  be  no  order  as  to

costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

 (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)      AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)