No job guarantee for deceased staffers’ kin without policy: Supreme Court

SC ruled that compassionate employment is not a vested right but a relief measure for families facing financial hardship after a government employee's death

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that compassionate employment provisions are not vested rights but a relief measure aiming to alleviate a family’s sudden financial hardship following the death of a government employee.

The Supreme Court of India. (HT File Photo)

The judgment, by a bench comprising justices AS Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih, underscored that such appointments are strictly contingent on statutory policies and guidelines by the authorities concerned and cannot be pressed as an entitlement.

“As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection,” said the bench.

Instead, the court emphasised, they are extended under stringent scrutiny, with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless.

“Compassionate appointment is therefore provided to bail out the family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment,” noted the bench.

The court made it clear that “in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted.”

This employment measure, the court held, serves as an exception to the general rule of merit-based appointments, reflecting the state’s obligation to assist in cases of sudden economic destitution due to the loss of a family’s sole breadwinner.

“This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner,” it added.

In this specific case, the son of a deceased police constable sought compassionate appointment many years after his father’s death, having only become eligible upon reaching adulthood 11 years later. However, as per the Haryana government’s rules, which require minors to reach the age of majority within three years of the employee’s death to qualify, his claim was denied. The bench upheld this decision, noting that without explicit statutory support or a valid policy framework in place at the time of application, compassionate appointments cannot be granted, regardless of individual hardship.

Simultaneously, the court acknowledged that the prolonged delay in deciding the appellant’s employment claim led to an oversight of his family’s eligibility for ex-gratia compensation. Since the appellant’s mother could have sought ex-gratia benefits when her son’s employment request was pending, the bench said that she should have been informed of her right to opt for this relief.

Thus, the court directed that the appellant’s mother be allowed to submit a representation requesting ex-gratia compensation. The competent authority must review her request and decide within six weeks. If granted, the compensation will be given without interest, provided it is disbursed within the stipulated time frame. Otherwise, a 6% interest rate will apply from the date of representation until payment, the court ordered.