Compassionate Appointment Not A Matter Of Right; But Requires Consideration Of Factors Such As Financial Distress: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The High Court held that while a compassionate appointment is not a vested right, the competent authority is bound to strictly consider the financial distress of the family and the circumstances surrounding the application, and cannot reject such claims mechanically on the ground of delay alone.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a compassionate appointment may not be a matter of right, but the other circumstances, including the financial distress of the family and the application made, are required to be strictly taken note of by the competent authority while deciding such claims.
The Court was hearing a writ petition arising from an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which had rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment solely on the ground of delay.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela, while allowing the writ petition, observed that “compassionate appointment may not be a matter of right, but the other circumstances, such as the financial distress and the application made, to be strictly taken note of”.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rama Mohan Rao Banda, while the respondents were represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India.
Background
The petitioner was the daughter of a railway employee who was medically de-categorised and thereafter opted for voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the railway authorities. At the time of retirement, the employee had dependent family members and limited pensionary benefits.
Several years later, an application was made seeking a compassionate appointment for the petitioner. The application was initially processed by the divisional authorities, who conducted an enquiry into the financial condition of the family and recommended the case for appointment on compassionate grounds.
However, the competent authority rejected the claim because the application was submitted beyond the stipulated period, treating it as time-barred. The petitioner’s challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal was dismissed, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the scheme and policy governing compassionate appointment and reiterated that such an appointment is intended to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased or incapacitated employee facing financial hardship.
The Court acknowledged that a delay in making an application may dilute the element of immediacy underlying compassionate appointment schemes. However, it held that delay by itself cannot be the sole ground for rejection, particularly where the delay is explained, and the financial distress of the family continues to subsist.
The Bench noted that in the present case, the application for compassionate appointment was actively considered by the initial authority, which conducted a detailed enquiry into the financial condition of the family and recorded specific findings indicating financial distress. The Court observed that these findings and recommendations were completely ignored by the competent authority while rejecting the application.
The Court further held that the applicable Railway Board instructions require the General Manager to undertake a balanced and objective assessment of the financial and other circumstances of the family while deciding such claims. Mechanical rejection on the ground of delay, without considering the enquiry report and surrounding circumstances, was held to be contrary to the governing policy.
The Bench emphasised that compassionate appointment, though not a vested right, cannot be denied arbitrarily. The authority is required to apply its mind to all relevant factors, including the family’s financial condition, dependents, and the explanation for the delay, before arriving at a decision.
The Court found that the Tribunal failed to examine whether the competent authority had properly applied its mind to these aspects and had erroneously upheld the rejection solely on the ground of delay.
Conclusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the delay in applying could not be treated as inordinate in the facts of the case and that the rejection of the claim without considering the financial distress and the enquiry report was unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the applicable policy within a stipulated period. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Bora Narayanamma v. Union of India & Others
Appearances
Petitioner: Rama Mohan Rao Banda, Advocate
Respondents: Poluri Prabhakar Rao, Advocate; Deputy Solicitor General of India