In a critical judgment addressing the boundaries of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that the right to equality cannot be used to claim parity based on an illegal or irregular benefit. This ruling came in the case of Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024, where the appellant, Tinku, sought a compassionate appointment in the Haryana Police following the death of his father, Constable Jai Prakash, in the line of duty.
The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih, underscores that invoking Article 14 cannot compel the government to perpetuate an illegality in favor of one individual simply because it was extended to another under improper circumstances.
Case Background
Tinku’s appeal stemmed from his claim for a compassionate appointment following his father’s death in 1997, when Tinku was seven years old. His father’s death left the family in financial difficulty, and his mother initially approached the Haryana Police Department, which placed Tinku’s name in a register for minors of deceased employees. However, by the time Tinku reached majority in 2008, Haryana had amended its compassionate appointment policies, limiting claims to those filed within three years from the employee’s death.
Despite representations to the Haryana Police, his application was rejected, and both his writ petition and an intra-court appeal were dismissed by the High Court. The case then proceeded to the Supreme Court, where Tinku’s legal team argued that under principles of promissory estoppel and Article 14, he was entitled to an appointment similar to other cases where such appointments were granted despite the time lapse.
Legal Issues and Arguments
1. Invoking Article 14 for Equality in Illegal Benefits: The appellant’s counsel contended that under Article 14, Tinku deserved equal treatment, given that other similarly situated individuals had received appointments in disregard of the time-bar policy. They argued that equality under the law should extend to him on similar grounds.
2. Principle of Promissory Estoppel: Tinku’s legal team argued that the Haryana Police Department, by registering his name as a minor dependent, had implicitly promised future consideration for compassionate appointment.
3. The Policy Shift and Legal Basis of Compassionate Appointments: The State countered that the compassionate appointment scheme is an exception to regular recruitment, aimed solely at providing immediate financial relief to families in dire need. It argued that granting appointments more than a decade after the employee’s death contradicts the policy’s purpose and legal framework.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
In a detailed analysis, Justice Augustine George Masih clarified the limitations of Article 14, emphasizing that it cannot be used to seek equality in perpetuating illegal or irregular benefits. “The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law,” the court observed. It further asserted that the rule of law must prevail, and individuals cannot demand rights or benefits derived from administrative errors or policy deviations.
The Court highlighted that compassionate appointments are not vested rights but special provisions for immediate financial distress. It remarked that policies setting reasonable timelines, like Haryana’s three-year limit for filing claims, were both lawful and logical. The bench cited previous judgments, including Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, which similarly restricted the interpretation of Article 14 in cases seeking equality through improper or irregular government action.
While rejecting the plea for a compassionate appointment, the Court acknowledged the appellant’s extended wait and suggested an alternative remedy. It granted Tinku’s mother a fresh opportunity to seek a lump-sum ex-gratia compensation, given the prolonged pendency of her son’s claim. The Court instructed the Haryana government to consider this representation within six weeks, offering financial redress without interest if paid within the timeframe, and with interest if delayed.
