MALAYA NANDA SETHY versus STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 20-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
707
MALAYA NANDA SETHY
v.
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Compassionate Appointment – Claim of – Rules
applicable, rules prevailing on the death of the Government servant,
who died in harness or the subsequent scheme prevalent at the time
of consideration of the application – On facts, appellant applied
for appointment as a Junior Clerk on compassionate ground under
the 1990 Rules – However, application kept pending for
consideration – Meanwhile, 1990 Rules replaced by 2020 Rules –
Thereafter, the application was considered under the 2020 Rules –
Writ petition by the appellant challenging the same– Dismissed by
the High Court – On appeal, held: Appellant fulfilled all the
conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds under the
1990 Rules – There was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence
on the part of the appellant at all – Delay was on the part of
department/authorities throughout on one ground or the other –
Appellant is deprived of seeking compassionate appointment which
he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990 Rules, thus, cannot be
denied appointment under the 1990 Rules – Orissa Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 – Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020.
Compassionate Appointment – Object and Purpose of – Held:
Basis or policy of compassionate appointment is immediacy in
rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased
employee consequent upon his untimely death while in service –
Thus, the authorities must consider and decide such applications
for compassionate appointment on grounds as per the policy
prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months
from the date of submission of such completed applications –
Application are to be considered well in time and not in a tardy way
– Consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 707
707
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
consideration – It cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and
for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, the appellant would be entitled for appointment on
compassionate ground as per the Orissa Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, which were applicable
at the time when the deceased employee died and the appellant
made an application for appointment on the death of his father,
i.e., in the year 2010. [Para 5][714-C-D]
1.2 It is not in dispute that the deceased employee died on
2.1.2010 while in service. Immediately, in July 2010, the appellant
applied for appointment on compassionate ground as a Junior
Clerk under the 1990 Rules. As per Rule 2(b) of the 1990 Rules,
“Family Members” shall mean and include the members in order
of preference, which include, (i) wife/husband (ii) sons.......
Therefore, when the mother was unable to undertake a
government job due to her medical condition, the appellant, being
the son was entitled to apply for appointment on the death of his
father. That the application of the appellant, though was forwarded
in the year 2011, was kept pending consideration initially for a
period of five years. The same was attended to after a period of
five years by the Additional Secretary. A fresh report regarding
the financial condition of the family of the deceased government
servant was called for. Also the Medical Board examined the
mother of the appellant and furnished a report  stating that she
was unfit for a government job. Though the appellant fulfilled all
the eligibility criteria and/or conditions for appointment on
compassionate grounds, he was not appointed as a Junior Clerk
as per 1990 Rules. However, in the meantime, 1990 Rules came
to be replaced and the 2020 Rules came into force. [Para 6][714-
E, F-H; 715-A, B, C-D]
1.3 There was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on
the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the conditions
for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules.
For no reason, his application was kept pending and/or no order
was passed on one ground or the other. Therefore, when there
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
was no fault and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all
throughout there was a delay on the part of the department/
authorities, the appellant should not be made to suffer. Not
appointing the appellant und

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.