SC upholds state's decision to cancel compassionate appointments

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that dependent of a deceased employee can seek compassionate appointment in terms of the rules prevailing at the time of application and not at the time of death of the government staff.

“In our opinion, the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for a claim for compassionate appointment. He (dependent) is disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee,” a three-judge bench presided over by Justice R Banumathi said.

The top court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s judgement in the case of N C Santosh and others, whose compassionate appointments were cancelled in view of the 1999 amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996.

The state government contended that since the compassionate appointment was an exception to the general rule, those ineligible cannot ask for the continuation of the illegal appointment. The candidates, for their part, claimed their matters should be considered as per rules prevailing at the time of death of their parents.

According to the amendment to the service rule, a minor dependent of the deceased government employee must apply within one year from the date of death of the government servant and such a candidate must have attained the age of 18 years. Before the amendment, the minor dependent was entitled to apply till one year of attaining majority.

“Following the amendment, the norms clearly suggest that the earlier provision which enabled a minor dependent to apply on attaining majority (maybe years after the death of the government servant), has been done away with. The object of the amended provision is to ensure that no application is filed beyond one year of the death of the government employee,” the bench said.

The court noted the beneficiaries here attained majority well beyond one year of the death of their respective parents, so there was no illegality in cancelling their appointments. It also pointed out none of the candidates challenged the validity of the amendment.