High Court rejects repeated plea for Compassionate Appointment in case of death of Employee

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that authorities cannot be expected to continuously offer appointments on compassionate grounds to the legal heirs of a deceased employee. The court stated that the scheme of compassionate appointment does not permit repeated claims for appointment, as it is intended to alleviate the financial difficulties faced by the family of the deceased employee. The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a method of appointment, but rather a means to provide immediate assistance to the family of the deceased.
Background of the Case
In this particular case, the petitioner is the son of the deceased R. Balachandran Pillai, who was a constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and passed away in 2006. In 2006, the wife of the deceased submitted an application nominating her daughter for a compassionate appointment. Although the daughter was offered an appointment, she did not utilize it and did not relinquish her claim for a compassionate appointment. In 2012, the wife submitted another application nominating her son for a compassionate appointment. In 2014, the wife requested the cancellation of the previous appointment given to the daughter and the grant of a compassionate appointment to the son. However, the authorities denied this request, stating that the petitioner-son could not be considered for a compassionate appointment in 2016. As a result, the petitioner filed a writ petition in 2018.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The authorities filed a counter affidavit, arguing that there was an unexplained delay in approaching the court against the order passed in 2016. They also contended that the daughter had been given opportunities for compassionate appointments that were not utilized. The court acknowledged that there is no limitation period for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but it can consider delay depending on the facts of each case. The court held that the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and relief could be declined based on unexplained delay. Referring to a previous judgment, the court stated that unexplained delay is a decisive factor in refusing to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.
The court then analyzed the entitlement of the petitioner to seek a compassionate appointment. It noted that the wife had initially nominated her daughter for appointment without waiting for her son to reach the age of majority. The court also observed that the wife did not cancel the nomination given to the daughter, and the daughter did not relinquish her claim for a compassionate appointment. The court clarified that offering a compassionate appointment to the son would contravene the basic principles governing compassionate appointments. It further emphasized that the father had passed away in 2006, and after 18 years, the court cannot direct the authorities to offer a compassionate appointment to the son.