In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that compassionate appointments are not guaranteed rights but must adhere to strict eligibility criteria and policy limitations, underscoring the necessity for immediate relief over prolonged entitlements.
Case Background
The judgment in Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024) involved Tinku, the son of Constable Jai Prakash, who passed away on duty in 1997. At the time, Tinku was only seven years old, leaving his mother to attempt securing employment under the compassionate appointment scheme. Due to her illiteracy, she could not apply for herself, prompting authorities to mark Tinku’s name in the “Minor’s Register” with the intent of considering him for the appointment once he reached adulthood. Upon reaching the age of majority in 2008, Tinku filed a formal application, which was subsequently denied by the State in 2009 on the grounds that it was time-barred due to the delay from his father’s death.
The case journeyed through the High Court before reaching the Supreme Court, with Tinku’s appeal centering on the principles of equity and promissory estoppel. His counsel argued that the delay, which was outside Tinku’s control, and the failure of the State to inform him of other relief options, created an unfair disadvantage.
Legal Issues
The main legal question revolved around whether compassionate appointments should be treated as entitlements due to prior State commitments, or if they are subject to policy restrictions. Tinku’s counsel argued that in similar cases, the State had provided compassionate appointments beyond the stipulated time, suggesting inconsistency in application and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The State of Haryana, represented by its counsel, argued that compassionate appointments are exceptional provisions, governed by strict criteria. Referring to the 1999 guidelines, the State emphasized that minors must attain adulthood within three years post the employee’s death to qualify for such appointments.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Key Observations
The three-judge bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih, delivered the ruling on November 13, 2024. While rejecting Tinku’s appeal for compassionate appointment, the Court highlighted that such appointments are intended for immediate financial relief rather than being vested rights. Justice Augustine George Masih noted:
“Compassionate appointment is provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty … It is not a vested right and must be subject to strict scrutiny as per policy guidelines.”
The Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions to standard recruitment norms, intended to assist families facing sudden destitution. Recognizing that Tinku reached adulthood 11 years after his father’s death, the Court ruled that the policy’s time constraints were justified and the State’s rejection of his application was lawful.
However, the Court found fault with the State’s administrative delay and its failure to inform Tinku’s mother about alternative forms of compensation. Justice Masih observed that the “State cannot ignore the law nor overlook its responsibility to inform dependents of available relief options.”
Reapplication for Ex-Gratia Compensation Permitted
The Court granted Tinku’s mother a fresh opportunity to apply for ex-gratia compensation under the compassionate scheme, citing that the prolonged processing of her initial application by the State had denied her timely access to relief. The Court mandated that her application be reviewed within six weeks and specified a 6% annual interest on any delays in payment should her request be approved.
Advocate Kavita Pahuja represented Tinku, while the State of Haryana’s legal team argued for the procedural legitimacy of their decision.
