Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Nirval Singh
Background
The respondent's father, an employee of Punjab State Power Corporation, died in 2004, and the respondent sought a compassionate appointment under the policy then in force. Before his application could be processed, the old policy was replaced by a new one, under which he was offered either a monetary solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs or a temporary post, both of which he declined. He did not approach any court until 2011, several civil and writ proceedings followed, and the lower courts ultimately ruled in his favour, leading the Corporation to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that there is no inherent right to a compassionate appointment: such appointments are a concession governed strictly by the policy in force, and once that policy is replaced, pending applications must be considered under the new policy. The Court found two decisive problems with the respondent's claim: he waited seven years before going to court, defeating the very purpose of compassionate appointment (immediate relief to a bereaved family), and he had already been offered and declined the benefits available under the new policy. The Court allowed the appeal, but directed that the respondent be paid Rs. 5 lakhs (the solatium amount as revised under the current policy) within two months, as a practical resolution given the passage of time.
Lesson Learnt
A compassionate appointment is a time-bound concession tied to whichever policy is in force when it is actually granted, not a permanent entitlement, delaying legal action for years can itself defeat a claim, even if it was valid when it originally arose.