Delay to decide claims for compassionate appointment frustrates object of scheme: SC

New Delhi [India], March 7 : The Supreme Court has said that delay on the part of the authorities of the state to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt be the very object of a scheme of compassionate appointment.
"Delay on the part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt the very object of a scheme of compassionate appointment," a bench of justices Krishna Murari and BV Nagarathna said.
The court observation came while allowing the appeal of West Bengal Govt challenging Calcutta HC's division bench order.
West Bengal government has filed appeals against the judgment and common order of the High Court of Calcutta, dated September 30, 2019, in a batch of appeals. By the impugned judgment and common order, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge of the High Court dated July 5, 2018, and directed the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality and the concerned authority in Ranaghat and Habra Municipalities to consider the
application made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
The present matter concern claims of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, who are heirs of employees of Burdwan, Ranaghat and Habra Municipalities, who died in harness for compassionate appointment to posts in the concerned municipalities. All these appeals concern common questions as to the entitlement of such persons to be considered for compassionate appointment and whether any scheme of the State Government supports their claim for compassionate appointment.
The court allowed the appeals on two counts: first, there was no policy existing to govern compassionate appointment to posts under local authorities in the State of West Bengal and hence, in the absence of such a policy, a compassionate appointment cannot be granted.
"Second, assuming that there was such a policy, it would be of no redeeming purpose to direct that the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds be considered and decided several years after they were filed," the court observed.
The top court restored the order of the single-judge of the High Court and set aside the division bench's ruling in the matter.
The top court noted that it thinks that this is not fit cases to direct that the claim of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained.
However, the top court said, "we must sound a strong word of reproach directed at the authorities of the Appellant-State, about the manner in which the applications for compassionate appointment of hundreds of dependents have been dealt with. Much uncertainty looms around the scope, extent and beneficiaries of the various schemes formulated by the State for governing the compassionate appointment and therefore, the concerned authorities are unable/unwilling to positively decide claims for compassionate appointment."

"This may have ultimately resulted in prejudice to the families of many government employees dying in harness. Delay on the part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt frustrate the very object of a scheme of compassionate appointment," the top court said.
"Government officials are to act with a sense of utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding claims of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome object of such a scheme is fulfilled," the court said.
"We are further of the view that the liberty granted to the local authorities in Circular No. 142-Emp. to formulate their own scheme for compassionate appointment is an acknowledgement of the fact that there was no policy existing to govern compassionate appointments to posts under local authorities," the court said.