New Delhi, Aug 12 The Supreme Court on Wednesday said compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said the scheme should be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner so that its object is achieved and not defeated.
"It is well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but at the same time, it is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee. Therefore, the scheme should be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner so that its object is achieved and not defeated," the bench said.
The observations came while allowing a plea by a man whose plea seeking compassionate appointment after his father's demise was rejected on the ground that he had crossed the age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement -- VI by the date his claim came to be considered.
Employed with Western Coalfields Limited, the man's father worked as a Dozer Operator for nearly 36 years and died in harness on December 17, 2020. On the date of death of the employee, his son was aged 34 years, 10 months and 12 days.
The top court said the son cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because the authorities took an unduly long time to process and decide his claim.
It said the authorities cannot be permitted to defeat the claim of an otherwise eligible dependent by taking advantage of their own delay in processing the application.
"The respondent-authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of appellant No. 2 (son) for compassionate appointment by treating him as eligible in age and by examining only the remaining conditions under the applicable scheme. Such exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
"If appellant No. 2 is otherwise found eligible, appointment shall be offered within four weeks thereafter," the bench said.
