Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied Because Deceased Had Less Than 3 Yrs Of Service Left: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that a policy condition restricting compassionate appointment on the basis of the remaining length of service of a deceased government employee is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed, “We find that the classification made on the basis of the remaining service period left for the deceased employee is neither intelligible nor has any nexus with the differentia sought to be achieved.”

“Fraud or misuse may occur, irrespective of the length of service remaining. Limiting the benefits to dependants of the deceased employees, who have 3(three) years of service remaining, does not necessarily reduce the risk of fraudulent claims; a would-be fraudster could equally fabricate or collude in cases where a deceased employee had long remaining service. There is no logical causal connection between the duration of remaining service and the likelihood of such misuse,” the bench added.

The ruling was delivered in a writ appeal filed along with a batch of connected appeals, in which the State challenged the judgment of the Single Judge passed in analogous writ petitions. The Single Judge had struck down Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, which prescribed an eligibility cut-off for compassionate appointment.

Under the said clause, the dependants of a deceased government employee who died in harness were declared ineligible for compassionate appointment if the employee had less than 3 years of service remaining at the time of death.

The State contended that that compassionate appointment is an exception to merit-based public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and does not constitute a vested right.

It further pointed out that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 now stood superseded by a new Scheme dated 14.09.2017 issued by the Finance Department, which actually replaced Compassionate Appointments with Compassionate Family Pension Scheme providing enhanced pension benefits instead.

The Court said in its judgement, “The absence of any contemporaneous reasoning diminishes any claim of the State that the choice of 3(three) years was the product of considered administrative evaluation for it not to be interfered with on the ground of such administrative policy being within the domain of executive and the usual restraint of the Courts in treading in such field.”

“The executive must always conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Policy classifications must not be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory without an intelligible basis. Compassionate appointment may not be an absolute vested right but it is a benefit conferred by the employer subject to policy conditions. The non-vested status of compassionate employment does not immunize arbitrary classifications from constitutional scrutiny,” it added.

Thus, the Court concluded that the declaration of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum was constitutionally invalid by the Single Judge, to be wholly justified.

Accordingly, the Bench upheld the direction for reconsideration and stated, “We thus affirm the relegating order passed by the learned Single Judge.”

At the same time, the Court also said, “The private respondents must not entertain any false hopes… the authorities shall consider the 'passage of time' aspect seriously, which is the most important factor, and any recommendation made after long passage of time ultimately may not withstand the judicial scrutiny.”

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State were dismissed.

Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 287 of 2023

Case Title: The State of Assam & Ors. v. Dipak Gogoi

Click Here To Read Judgement