Appointment on compassionate grounds is concession and not right: Supreme Court
New Delhi, October 3
Noting that appointment on compassionate grounds is a concession and not a right, the Supreme Court sets aside a Kerala High Court verdict directing the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd to consider the case of a woman for appointment on compassionate ground 24 years after the death of her father who worked for the company.
“Applying the law laid down by this Court…to the facts of the case on hand… and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father who died in the year 1995,” a Bench led by Justice MR Shah said.
“After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided,” it said last week.
Holding that both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court committed a “serious error” in directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent woman for appointment on compassionate ground, the top court quashed the High Court’s order terming it “unsustainable”. The HC had passed its order on November 13, 2019 asking the company to consider appointing the daughter of the deceased employee.
Petitioner Anusree KB’s father – who worked as a loading helper with the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd — expired while on duty on April 19, 1995. Since the wife of the deceased employee was working with the state government, she was ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
However, 14 years after her father’s death, Anusree K.B. made a representation seeking her appointment on compassionate grounds. Her application was rejected on February 12, 2018 on the grounds that her name was not in the list of dependents submitted by the deceased employee and that the policy was to give employment to widow or son or unmarried daughter of the deceased employee.
