Dependent Can’t Be Denied Compassionate Appointment Due To Procedural Delay: Supreme Court
The Apex Court said the employer could not defeat an otherwise eligible claim by relying on time consumed in its own verification and processing.
The Supreme Court has held that a dependent cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because procedural formalities took time, and directed the authorities to reconsider the claim by treating the applicant as eligible in age and examining only the remaining conditions under the applicable scheme.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition against Western Coalfields Limited’s rejection of a dependent son’s claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI by the time his claim was considered.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed: “However, the interpretation advanced by the respondent-authorities cannot be accepted, because a dependent who was fully eligible on the date of death and who submitted the application within a reasonable period of 6 months cannot be considered ineligible merely because the requisite procedural formalities took time, as such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of the scheme.”
Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Ashwani Bhardwaj appeared for the respondent-authorities.
Background
The Court was hearing an appeal against the Bombay High Court’s decision dismissing a writ petition challenging the rejection of compassionate appointment by Western Coalfields Limited.
The deceased employee had served as a Dozer Operator with Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years and died in harness. His son was below 35 years of age on the date of death. The authorities later directed him to undergo police verification for compassionate appointment, but rejected the claim on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit of 35 years under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI by the time the claim was considered.
The High Court had affirmed the rejection, holding that age had to be reckoned on the date of consideration of the claim. The appellants argued before the Supreme Court that the process had already begun when the dependent was within the prescribed age limit, and that procedural delay could not be used to deny the benefit.
Court’s Observations
The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not an absolute right, but said the scheme must be applied in a manner consistent with its welfare object.
The Bench observed: “At the outset, it is well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but at the same time, it is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee. Therefore, the scheme should be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner so that its object is achieved and not defeated.”
The Court noted that police verification and document verification had already been completed before the formal application was acknowledged, and that the period thereafter overlapped with the second wave of COVID-19.
The Bench remarked: “In these circumstances, any delay during this period cannot fairly be attributed to appellant No. 2 and he cannot be made to suffer on account of circumstances beyond his control.”
Rejecting the employer’s argument that police verification was only a routine administrative step, the Court held that the employer’s own SOP made verification part of the compassionate appointment process.
The Court held: “Therefore, police verification is an important part of the process and cannot take place unless a claim has already been initiated. Hence, if no claim had been made, there was no reason for the respondent-authorities to direct appellant No. 2 to undergo police verification. Thus, their own conduct clearly shows that the process had already begun on 04.01.2021.”
The Court relied on the principle that an otherwise eligible applicant cannot be made to suffer due to delay or inaction attributable to the employer.
The Court observed: “The respondent-authorities cannot be permitted to defeat the claim of an otherwise eligible dependent by taking advantage of their own delay in processing the application.”
The Court also found that the High Court erred in accepting the stand that the claim came into existence only when the formal application was submitted.
The Court underscored: “The High Court further proceeded on the premise that there was no delay on the part of the respondent-authorities. However, even assuming that 14.06.2021 was the relevant date, the claim was rejected only on 03.02.2023, about 19 months thereafter. Thus, the finding of the High Court that the claim of appellant No. 2 was considered within a period of 4 to 5 months is contrary to the facts and material on record and, therefore, cannot be sustained.”
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and held that the authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim on the ground that the dependent had crossed the age limit by the time the application was considered.
The respondent-authorities were directed to reconsider the claim by treating the dependent as age-eligible and examining only the remaining conditions under the applicable scheme.
Cause Title: Raspelli Bhagya Kishaiya & Ors. v. General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 841)