Suneel Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors
Background
The appellant's father, a Class-IV sweeper in a Uttar Pradesh government office, died in service in 2016. The appellant, a graduate with computer literacy, was offered his late father's post of Sweeper under the compassionate appointment rules but refused it, instead seeking appointment to the higher Class-III post of Gram Panchayat Officer, arguing his superior qualifications entitled him to a "suitable" post of that level. The State rejected this, and the High Court ruled against him relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision (State of U.P. v. Premlata) holding that "suitable employment" under Rule 5 must be pegged to the post held by the deceased employee.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that "suitable employment" under Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules must be assessed with reference to the post the deceased employee held, not the dependent's own higher qualifications, since compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief to a bereaved family rather than serve as a general recruitment route. It rejected the appellant's argument that internal government instructions permitted a Class-III appointment even where the deceased held a Class-IV post, holding those instructions were not statutory rules that could override the settled legal position. However, since the death had occurred fairly recently and delay was not attributable to the appellant's own fault, the Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the authorities to appoint him to the post of Sweeper, the post his father had held, within eight weeks.
Lesson Learnt
Compassionate appointment schemes exist to give urgent relief to a bereaved family, not to secure a dependent a job matching their own qualifications; a dependent seeking such appointment is generally entitled only to a post at the same level the deceased employee held.