THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR. versus P. VENKATESH

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 01-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
P. VENKATESH
(Civil Appeal No. 2425 of 2019)
MARCH 01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service law:
Compassionate appointment – Claim of – Delay of over a
decade in raising a claim by son of the deceased government
employee– Effect of – Held: Essence of the claim of compassionate
appointment lies in the immediacy of the need – Recourse to the
tribunal suffered from a delay of over a decade in the first instance
– Staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providing
compassionate appointment – Thus, the claim of compassionate
appointment is rejected – Judgment of the High Court which had
allowed the claim is set aside – Delay/laches.
Administration of justice:
Speedy disposal of cases – ‘Dispose of the representation’
mantra – Effect of – Held: Is increasingly permeating the judicial
process in the High Courts and the tribunals – Such orders may
make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened
adjudicatory institutions – However, they do no service to the cause
of justice – Litigant is back again before the court, having incurred
attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Compassionate appointment, is intended to
enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis
which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in
harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the
need. It is evident that even the first recourse to the Central
Administrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after
the death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set of
representations had been rejected in 1997. The tribunal,
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 978
978
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
unfortunately, passed a succession of orders calling upon the
appellants to consider and then re-consider the representations
for compassionate appointment. After the Government rejected
the representation in 2007, it was only in 2010 that the tribunal
was moved again, with the same result. These successive orders
of tribunal for re-consideration of the representation cannot
obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the tribunal for
compassionate appointment over a decade after the death of the
deceased employee. This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra
is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts
and the tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy
disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But,
they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back
again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred
attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This
would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first
instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. By the time,
the High Court issued its direction on 9 August 2016, nearly
twenty one years had elapsed since the date of the death of the
employee. [Para 8][981-D-H; 982-A]
1.2 The recourse to the tribunal suffered from a delay of
over a decade in the first instance. This staleness of the claim
took away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment.
The claim was liable to be rejected on that ground and ought to
have been so rejected. The judgment of the High Court is
unsustainable and is set aside. The judgment of the tribunal
dismissing the Original Application is upheld. [Paras 11, 12]
[982-G; 983-A]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC
138 – referred to
Case Law Reference
(1994) 4 SCC 138
referred to
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2425
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2016 of the  High
Court of  Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 4598 of 2014.
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR. v. P. VENKATESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
980                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Dhruv Pall, Ms.
Bhavana Duhoon, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the Appellants.
Aravindh S., Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras,
by its judgment dated 9 August 2016, issued a mandamus, while setting
aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and directed the
appellants to grant appointment on a compassionate basis to the respondent
within a

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