In the case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, the Supreme Court laid down the following basic principles governing the employment being given to a person on compassionate grounds, i.e., appointment given to a family member on the death of an employee in a government department or a public sector undertaking, such as a public sector bank:
- Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.
- An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
- An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.
- Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.
It was further held in the above case that:
- Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance.
- Claim of compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular year cannot be decided based on subsequent scheme that came into force much after claim.
Likewise, in the case of Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729, the Supreme Court reiterated the above principle that the claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of employee and that subsequent scheme(s) cannot be looked into.
In this case, the Supreme Court also held that one has to keep in mind the basic principles applicable to the cases of compassionate employment i.e. succour being provided at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment.
Similarly, in the case of State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285, it has been held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee, relying on the following judgments:
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138.
- SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271.
- Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265.
- SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778.
- Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384.
In the above case of Parkash Chand, it was further held that in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy relating to compassionate employment. The Court held that it was impermissible for courts to rewrite the terms of the Policy and issue directions to the State to consider applications which do not fulfil the terms of the Policy relating to compassionate employment.
It was on this basis that the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid Promila case, held that it is not for the courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review.
Thus, it should be clear that a compassionate employment may be permissible only in terms of the policy of the concerned department or organisation, and that too, the policy that was applicable at the relevant time and not as per any future policy. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
