The Supreme Court of India has recently delved into the intricate issue of determining which compassionate appointment scheme should be applied: the one prevailing at the time of the deceased employee's death or the one in effect when the application is considered. This matter has been a subject of conflicting judgments, leading to legal ambiguities.
Background of Compassionate Appointments
Compassionate appointments are designed to provide immediate assistance to the dependents of government employees who die in harness, leaving their families in financial distress. The primary objective is to mitigate the sudden economic hardship faced by the bereaved family by offering employment to a qualified dependent. However, the applicability of the specific scheme—whether the one in force at the time of death or at the time of application consideration—has been a contentious issue.
Divergent Judicial Perspectives
The judiciary has witnessed varying interpretations regarding the applicable scheme for compassionate appointments:
Scheme at the Time of Death: In Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015), the Supreme Court held that the scheme prevalent at the time of the employee's death should govern the appointment. The Court emphasized that a subsequent scheme cannot nullify the rights that have already vested under the earlier scheme.
Scheme at the Time of Application Consideration: Conversely, in State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar (2010) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh (2014), the Court opined that the scheme in force at the time of application consideration should apply. The rationale was that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must align with the prevailing policy framework.
This dichotomy led to further deliberations, and in State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019), the matter was referred to a larger bench to resolve the inconsistency.
Recent Supreme Court Observations
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the persisting ambiguity in determining the applicable scheme for compassionate appointments. The Court noted that while some judgments favor the application of the scheme existing at the time of the employee's death, others support the application of the scheme in effect at the time of application consideration.
The Court highlighted that this issue remains in a "grey area" due to the conflicting judicial opinions. The Bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized the need for a definitive resolution to ensure uniformity and clarity in compassionate appointment cases.
Implications of the Divergence
The conflicting judgments have significant implications:
For Applicants: Dependents of deceased employees face uncertainty regarding which scheme will apply to their application, potentially affecting their eligibility and the benefits they might receive.
For Employers: Government bodies and public sector undertakings encounter challenges in formulating policies and making decisions that are consistent with the law, given the lack of clear judicial guidance.
The Path Forward
The Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the conflicting judgments underscores the necessity for a conclusive determination. A larger bench may be constituted to examine the issue comprehensively and establish a uniform principle regarding the applicability of compassionate appointment schemes.
Such a resolution would provide much-needed clarity and consistency, ensuring that the objectives of compassionate appointments are met while adhering to legal and policy frameworks.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's recent observations highlight the ongoing legal debate concerning the applicable scheme for compassionate appointments. A definitive ruling is anticipated to harmonize the divergent views and provide clear guidance for future cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.