Compassionate appointment
K.S.Srinivas
(Querist) 14 April 2012
This query is : Resolved
An employee working power sector of Govt. of A.P. met with accident while performing official duties. His one leg and one hand are amputated. The total medical expenditure amounting to Rs.8.00 lakhs were borne by the department. Besides this, compensation of of Rs.6.00 lakhs as per employees compensation act is paid to him. Now his wife is claiming compassionate appointment. The department is not in favour of providing compassionate appointment and asking us to find out that any provision is available for not providing appointment as the total expenditure of Rs.8.00 lakhs and compensation of Rs.6.00 was paid to the employee. Is there any provision / judgement to the effect that for not providing compassionate appointment.
Guest
(Expert) 14 April 2012
Dear Shri Srinivas,
Workman's Compensation Act and the Compassionate appointment have nothing in common and cannot be intermingled.
Medical expenses have also not gone to the pocket of the workman. The compensation of 6 lakhs was paid for the loss of the body parts of the workman making him totally disable for life. Moreover, the amount so paid cannot compensate him for the rest of his life to be able to earn his livelyhood and to maintain his family and meet with other social obligations.
The Government is therefore liable to provide compassionate appointment to any of his family members to sustain life for the family as a whole. Rather very sympathetic view should have been taken by the Government, as the Government failed to meet with adequate safety and security measures for its worker.
In fact, negative attitude of the officers at the helm of affairs should be shunned.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 14 April 2012
The very purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succour to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a state of destitution, the bench said. "If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution," Justice Alam, writing the judgement, observed. the apex court cited the Central government's Office Memorandum dated October 9,1998 Clause 1 which describes the object of the Scheme as under:- "The object of the Scheme is to grant appointment on ompassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood to relieve the family of the government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency."
ajay sethi
(Expert) 14 April 2012
In State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661, elucidating the nature of the scheme of compassionate appointments this Court observed:
"It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant."
K.S.Srinivas
(Querist) 15 April 2012
Dear Experts,
Compassionate appointments is not a matter of right the Supreme Court said.
THE INDIAN EXPRESS
New Delhi, Wed Apr 06 2011, 08:48 hrs
Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right: SC
Compassionate appointments cannot be made as a matter of right as it has to be done only when the family is in need of financial security after the death of the bread winner otherwise it would be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court said today.
A Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha quashed a direction of the Madras High Court which directed appointment of M Selvanayagam in Karaikal Municipality, five years after the death of his father Meenakshisundaram, a watchman.
"An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16(equality) of the Constitution and hence, is quite bad and illegal.
"In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind," the Bench said.
Meenakshisundaram died on November 22, 1988, after putting in 4 years 3 months and 25 days of service. It was only in 1993 that Selvanayagam made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds.
The apex court rejected the plea of the wife that she could apply for government job and instead chose to do some menial jobs on account of her poor health condition.
"We think that the explanation given for the wife of the deceased not asking for employment is an after-thought and completely unacceptable.
"A person suffering from anaemia and low blood pressure will always greatly prefer the security and certainty of a regular job in the municipality which would be far more lucrative and far less taxing than doing menial work from house to house in an unorganised way," the Bench said.
The apex court recalled that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness, one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective of providing immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner.
"It is not our intent nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme," the Bench added.
Besides the above, in para 5(1) of the order on providing compassionate appointments (which is enclosed) it is indicated that:-
This concession of compassionate appointment shall be allowed
only in exceptional cases where the appointing authority is
satisfied that the condition of the family is indigent and in great
distress and when there is no other earning member in the family.
The word “family” consists of the members as defined in sub-rule
12 (b) of Rule 50 of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
Secondly, in the case of LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT and M. SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU, the Apex Court said as follows:-
The reason rejecting the
respondent’s claim was that following the death of Meenakshisundaram, the family was given Rs.26,674/- as terminal benefits besides family pension to the widow. Thus, the dependents of the deceased employee were not left completely without any
financial resources.
As seen from the above, a conclusion can be drawn that compassionate appointment shall be provided to the dependents of deceased employee in the cases only when the family is starving to death consequent death/medical invalidation of the employee. In the present case, an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs is paid towards compensation and the employee is getting pension, it amounts that the family is not starving to death consequent to medical invalidation of the employee. Hence, compassionate appointment need not be provided the dependents of the medically invalidated employee.
Comments of the experts are invited on the above points please.
K.S.Srinivas
(Querist) 15 April 2012
In continuation of my opinion and the APEX court opinion, it is concluded that the family of the medically invalidated employee's family is not starving to death as monthly pension amounting to Rs.26,000/- is sanctioned and hence the family is not starving to death due to financial crisis. Therefore, as per the objective of the scheme, compassionate appointment need not compulsorily provided to the dependent wife.
Guest
(Expert) 15 April 2012
Dear Shri Srinivas,
Every case law has its own significance. Rs.26,000 income as monthly pension cannot be equated with the other cases of starving family members. Moreover, compassionate appointments are not made merely on application. Besides the application form being lengthy requiring full background, the case is also duly investigated by field staff to verify about the eligibility of the candidate. So, every case law cannot be made applicable universally on every other case.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 15 April 2012
I do agree with Sriniwas. Supreme Court of India has discussed all aspects of the situations as told by Dhingra and sethi and has thereafter concluded that this be stopped with immediate effect. Case law is self explanatory.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 21 April 2012
Agreed. Compassionate appointment cannot be taken as a right but on the same time ti cannot be denied arbitrarily.
