Summary of this article
The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointment is a vital safety net, not a mere formality.
The court held that recruitment bans and financial crises of employers cannot automatically block such appointments.
The court ruled in favour of a woman who waited over two decades after her mother’s death in service in a PSU in Kerala.
The compassionate appointment is offered to a family member of a deceased employee to prevent the family from financial destitution. In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the scheme is not a formality but is a lifeline for families in distress. In this case, the petitioner has spent over two decades running around the employer’s office (The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd) after the passing of her mother, the single breadwinner of the family.
Her mother passed away in 2001, during service, and thus, under the compassionate appointment scheme, a family member could have been offered a job, but it didn’t turn out as expected.
The petitioner is the daughter of a former worker at the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. After her mother’s death while working, she applied for a position under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. In 2012, she was officially included in the waiting list for the ‘Junior Assistant’ role. However, instead of offering a permanent appointment, she was engaged on a daily wage basis in 2013, which gave her a temporary status. The appointment as a temporary worker was renewed every year for over a decade.
In 2022, a Writ petition was filed, and the court order directed the Government to finalise her case. Later, the government noted that out of 21 vacancies, five may be allotted to the candidates under the compassionate appointment scheme. It then directed the Corporation to grant an appointment without delay. As per a related government order, applications for such appointments should be submitted to the Administrative Department controlling the concerned Public Sector Undertaking (PSU).
So, complying with the order, the Corporation submitted all such applications to the Agricultural Department. And, subsequently in 2024, the Corporation issued an order to deny her (petitioner) the appointment. This prompted her to approach the high court.
Arguments
The petitioner referred to the RTI reply a job aspirant received from the Corporation. She argued that there are five vacancies of Junior Assistants kept for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme, yet no action is taken.
In response, the Corporation (respondent) raised several defences for its refusal to appoint her. They argued that the petitioner had waived the right to permanent employment by accepting daily wage work and the conditions under which she could not make future claims. They further contended that the Corporation is facing a financial crisis that could lead to banning all regular recruitments. To defend their point, they also claimed that compassionate scheme appointments are capped at 50 per cent of the total cadre strength as per government order, while in this case, appointments already constitute 58.78 per cent.
Court Observation
Justice Viju Abraham observed that “the request of the petitioner for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme has not been rejected, but it only says that the appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme has already exceeded the 50 per cent fixed”.
On the argument that the petitioner cannot raise a claim for permanent appointment, the court rejected the contention, saying that the petitioner has not given any such undertaking, nor is there any condition stipulating that once appointed temporarily on a daily wage basis, the petitioner forgoes the right to compassionate appointment under the scheme.
It further noted that a general ban on recruitment due to the financial crisis does not automatically apply to compassionate appointments, which are “kept outside the purview of the general ban” and aimed to save families from penury.
The court also noted that “the Corporation is also not very sure about the vacancy position in respect of various cadres in the Corporation, including those to be appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme” as it was undergoing a cadre review and staff restructuring.
Court Judgment
The Court held, “I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1st respondent (Corporation), after exercising the review of cadre strength and staff pattern and earmarking the exact number of vacancies available for being appointed through the Compassionate Employment Scheme.”
It directed the Corporation to complete it within three months and, if vacancies are available, make an appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme strictly based on seniority. The writ petition was disposed of.
