In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India reinforced the principle that compassionate appointments must prioritize humanitarian considerations over bureaucratic technicalities. The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to provide a long-delayed appointment to Mr. Virendra Pal Singh, whose application had been rejected due to procedural delays.
Background of the Case
The controversy stemmed from the denial of compassionate appointment to Mr. Singh, whose father, a government employee, passed away in 1997. The application, submitted 13 years after the death, was rejected under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, which require applications to be filed within five years of the employee’s death.
Mr. Singh contested this rejection before the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in his favor. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, prompting the State to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Interpretation of Rules for Compassionate Appointment: Whether the five-year limitation could be relaxed in light of exceptional circumstances.
2. Equity and Justice in Administrative Decisions: The need to balance procedural rules with the fundamental objective of providing relief to bereaved families.
3. Role of Courts in Reviewing Administrative Actions: The judiciary’s function in ensuring fairness and justice in administrative processes.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the State’s appeal, criticizing the delay in delivering justice. Ordering the State to appoint Mr. Singh to a suitable post within six weeks, the Court emphasized that procedural rigidity should not undermine the core objective of compassionate appointments.
The Court observed:
“Compassionate appointments should reflect humanitarian considerations. If the facts of this case do not justify a relaxation of procedural timelines, no other set of facts would.”
It lamented the unnecessary litigation faced by Mr. Singh, stating:
“It is unfortunate that the respondent has been dragged to repeated litigation by the appellants for no fault of his own since the year 2010.”
Observations by the High Court
The Allahabad High Court had previously noted that Mr. Singh’s family, surviving on a meager pension of ₹3,600 and rural agricultural income, was in dire financial straits. It held that such circumstances warranted relaxation of the five-year rule. The Court also highlighted the extensive legal battle waged by Mr. Singh, finding it unjust to remit the matter back to the State for reconsideration.
Representation in Court
– For the State of Uttar Pradesh: Ms. Ruchira Goel, Advocate-on-Record.
– For Mr. Virendra Pal Singh: Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Advocate-on-Record, supported by Advocates Mr. Rishad Murtaza and Mr. Siddhant Yadav.
