In a recent case of Tinku v/s State of Haryana & Others involving the son of a deceased Haryana Police constable, the Supreme Court of India addressed the legal intricacies surrounding compassionate appointments and ex-gratia compensation for the dependents of government employees who die in harness. The case not only dealt with the issue of compassionate appointments but also examined the procedural fairness in granting ex-gratia compensation to families who had faced delays in exercising their rights under the relevant government policies.

The appellant, the son of Shri Jai Prakash, a deceased constable in Haryana Police, had approached the Haryana government for a compassionate appointment following his father's untimely death on November 22, 1997, while on duty. At the time of his father's death, the policy governing compassionate appointments was the 1995 policy, which only allowed for such appointments to be made in Class III and IV posts. The appellant, who was only seven years old at the time, was a minor and unable to apply for the job.

His mother, who was illiterate, could not pursue the claim for compassionate appointment herself. However, she eventually applied for the appointment on behalf of her son after he turned 18. A communication from the Director General of Police (DGP) in 1998 confirmed the registration of the appellant's name in a Minor's Register, indicating the government's intent to grant him a job once he reached the age of majority.

After the appellant reached adulthood in 2008, he formally requested the appointment, citing previous communications and the state's policy. However, in April 2009, the DGP rejected the claim on the grounds that it was time-barred, as the appellant had failed to apply within three years of his father's death—a stipulation under a government instruction issued in 1999. The instructions set a limit of three years from the date of death for a minor dependent to attain the age of majority and apply for the job. Since the appellant's father passed away in 1997, the 11-year delay from the death to the application led to the rejection of the claim.

The appellant challenged this decision in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that the principle of promissory estoppel should apply, as previous communications from the authorities indicated the possibility of compassionate appointment. However, the High Court dismissed his petition in 2021, emphasizing the delay and the applicability of the legal guidelines in place.

The appellant then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, asserting that his claim for compassionate appointment should be considered under the principle of equality, referencing similar cases where applicants had been granted appointments despite the time limits. However, the Court clarified that the compassionate appointment policy is not a vested right but rather a discretionary measure provided to families in distress, particularly in cases of financial destitution following the death of the sole breadwinner. The Court stressed that such appointments are made based on a strict evaluation of the circumstances and are subject to the policies in place at the time.

The Supreme Court also noted that the government had introduced clear guidelines for compassionate appointments, and the appellant's claim fell outside the bounds of these rules, which stipulated a three-year limit for claims. The Court further emphasized that the invocation of Article 14 (equality before the law) could not be used to claim rights based on past irregularities or illegalities.

While rejecting the appellant's claim for a compassionate appointment, the Court did recognize a critical issue regarding the ex-gratia compensation to the family. The Court pointed out that the widow of the deceased constable, who had been waiting for a decision on her son's appointment for over a decade, was never informed of the government's option to seek a lump sum ex-gratia payment, a provision available under the 2003 and 2005 Haryana rules.

In response to the oversight, the Court allowed the appellant’s mother one last opportunity to apply for ex-gratia compensation. The Court’s decision was informed by a 2011 government order that provided a one-time relaxation to families who had missed the window to apply for ex-gratia compensation due to lack of awareness. The widow was thus given six weeks to submit her representation for the ex-gratia payment, which would be processed without interest if paid on time.

The judgment sheds light on the legal principles surrounding compassionate appointments, emphasizing that such appointments are not automatic but subject to the governing rules and policies. Compassionate appointment, the Court noted, is an exception to the regular recruitment process and is intended to provide immediate relief to families facing sudden financial hardship due to the death of the sole breadwinner.

The case also highlights the procedural importance of timely and transparent communication by the authorities regarding available benefits under schemes like ex-gratia compensation. The Court's direction to provide the widow of the deceased constable a chance to claim the ex-gratia benefit underscores the importance of ensuring that citizens are adequately informed of their rights and options.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the balance between compassion and legal constraints. While policies such as compassionate appointments are meant to offer relief to bereaved families, they are not absolute rights and must be navigated within the framework of established rules. The Court's decision on ex-gratia compensation demonstrates a pragmatic approach, providing a fair remedy in the face of procedural lapses by the state. The case also underscores the importance of timely communication by government authorities to ensure that the dependents of deceased employees are not deprived of their legitimate entitlements.