JUDGMENT
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
1. This writ petition is before us as referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court who felt that some of the decisions rendered by other learned single Judges on the question of compassionate appointments require to be reconsidered in the light of some of the binding decisions of the Supreme Court. In fact, an elaborate order of reference was passed by the same learned Judge in WP (S) No. 6023 of 2002, but we did not answer the question therein because, that case could be disposed of on facts and there was no need to resolve the controversy. But the fact remains that the learned single Judge felt while making the reference to the Division Bench that the decision rendered or the direction issued by two other learned Judges of this Court could not be followed in the light of the legal position emerging from the decisions of the Supreme Court. We have heard counsel in detail at the hearing.
2. The father of the writ petitioner died on 27.7.1997 while he was employed as a Security Guard in Central Coalfields Limited. Compassionate appointment or appointment of dependents of those who died in hathess was at that time, governed by Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. Annexure-C itself was based on a settlement Between the Management and the Union in regard to the sustenance to be provided to the families of employees who died in harness. The settlement dated 12.12.1995 provided that the dependant had to apply for appointment within six months of the date of death of the employee. In the present case, the son of the employee, the writ petitioner, made an application only on 19.8.1998, more than one year after the date of death. In view of the finding rendered by this Court in the writ petition that the period of six months was too short, Annexure-D Circular was issued by the Central Coalfields Limited on 1.1.2002 extending the period of one year from the date of death and taking note of the persistent demand of the Union. The said circular or decision was made applicable from February, 2000. It may be noted that the father of the petitioner died on 27.7.1997 and the application was made by the petitioner only on 19.8.1998 even beyond the period of one year as indicated in Annexure-D Circular.
3. The petitioner approached this Court with the writ petition complaining that the Central Coalfields Limited was not disposing of his application for compassionate appointment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Central Coalfields Limited took a decision and by communication dated 8/11th October, 2001 informed the petitioner that since he had not applied within the time prescribed as per the prevailing norms, his case could not be considered under paragraph 9:3:2 of the concerned settlement or Regulation for appointment. The petitioner thereupon filed a rejoinder seeking to challenge this order on the ground that the same was illegal. It is thus the correctness of the stand adopted by the Central Coalfields Limited that falls for decision in this case.
4. It is now settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court that a compassionate appointment is not consistent with the normal rules of recruitment in any Government service or a public sector undertaking and such appointments have to be regulated by appropriate Rules or Schemes in that behalf. It has also been pointed out that the object of compassionate appointment is to bring immediate succour to the deprived family of the deceased employee and lapse of time could justify the rejection of a claim for employment. On that footing, the very object of making a provision for such an extraordinary appointment would be defeated by lapse of time. Here, on the basis of a Wage settlement, a provision has been made for compassionate appointment and circulars have been issued fixing the time within which the dependent of a deceased employee had to apply for such appointment. Thus, a Scheme had been framed by the Central Coalfields Limited and a period has been fixed within which an application had to be made. The time stated to run from the date of death of the employee. When Central Coalfields Limited has such a scheme and a time limit for applying for appointment under the scheme, necessary ly, the Central Coalfields “Limited is bound to follow the scheme and it is not entitled to deviate from it merely to suit the convenience of a particular employee or his dependant. Therefore, when a Court issues a direction to the Central Coalfields Limited to give appointment to a dependent even though he had not fulfilled the conditions of the scheme, in our view, the Court will be clearly acting illegally and would be introducing arbitrariness in the matter of implementation of the scheme. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, 1994 (2) SCC 718, the Supreme Court held that Courts cannot order appointment on compassionate ground de hors the provisions of statutory regulations and instructions. It was also held that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138, it was held that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment’ was to enable the family to tide-over the sudden crisis. Compassionate appointment could not be given after lapse of a reasonable time, which must be specified in the Rules. Consideration for such appointment is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. It may be noted that the Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, 1989 (4) SCC 468, had recommended to the Government to frame a policy for compassionate appointments. In the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jafli Devi, 1997 (5) SCC 301, the Supreme Court held that in the matter of compassionate appointment, the policy laid down by the Government should not be departed from by the High Court merely on the ground of sympathic consideration and alleged hardships of the person concerned. We do not think that it is necessary to multiply authorities on this question. Thus, it has been clearly held that any scheme for making compassionate appointments had to be followed and it is not for the Court to depart from the Scheme or to direct the concerned employer to deviate from its own scheme for giving compassionate appointment to a person who had not satisfied the requirements of the scheme. The two conditions required necessarily are the death of an employee while in service and the application by the dependant within the time stipulation, claiming appointment on compassionate ground.
4. Originally, the Central Coalfields Limited -had fixed a period of six months, within which one had to apply. The petitioner’s case is governed by that. As we have noticed, earlier, the petitioner did not apply within that period”. Therefore, the Central Coalfields Limited was clearly justified in rejecting the claim for appointment. But it is contended that the fixation of a period of six months was found to be unreasonable by this Court in Roopna Manjhi v. Central Coalfields Limited and Ors., 2003 (1) JCR 324. Presumably, in view of this-we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of that decision since that is not necessary for the purpose of this case,–the Central Coalfields Limited issued a fresh Circular fixing the period as one year from the date of death of an employee and giving it effect from February, 2000. As we have noticed, this circular has no application to the case of the petitioner and even if it is considered to have application in view of the striking down of the earlier period fixed, the petitioner should have applied within one year of the date of death for compassionate appointment. Admittedly, he had not done so. In the decision in Rinku Kumari @ Riko Kumari v. Central Coalfields Limited, 2003 (1) JCR 363, this Court held that if an application has been filed within one year, it deserves to be considered after finding as a fact that an application had been made in that case within one year. Nothing turns on that decision since it does not decide any principle on this question. In one of the decisions, this Court even suggested that the period of 1-1/2 years would be reasonable for making an application for compassionate appointment and the Central Coalfields Limited had to consider that aspect. Going by that observation, it appears that subsequently, the Central Coalfields Limited has extended the time for making the application to 1-1/2 years from the date of death. How far this Court was justified in thinking that 1-1/2 years from the date of death was a proper period is not very clear. According to us, if the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to bring immediate relief and succour to the deprived family, the period of 1-1/2 years after the death even for making an application appears to us to be not reasonable. Strictly speaking, considering the nature of the appointment, in any event, the period of one year from the date of death appears to be reasonable and proper in the scheme of things. We are of the view that the decision in which a direction was issued against the terms of the Scheme and the Circular of the Central Coalfields Limited to consider an application made even beyond the time, did not lay down the correct law. In fact, such a direction tends to usher in some sort of arbitrariness, when the authority concerned itself had taken care to define its authority by providing that an application must be made within the period of one year of the death of the deceased employee. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court above referred to, it also appears to us that the High Court should not issue directions to consider claims for compassionate appointment when applications are not filed within time in accordance with the Scheme, Rules, Regulations or Circulars governing the concerned institution. We hereby disapprove of all decisions which have given such a direction. It is not for the Court to enable an authority to act arbitrarily and give that authority an undue discretion to entertain an application filed beyond time when that authority has itself taken care to limit its own discretion considering that compassionate appointment is against the scheme of regular appointment as adopted by the institution itself and in a sense offends Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. When compassionate appointment to a dependant of a public sector undertaking or an entity which is a State within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is governed by a scheme or rule or circular issued in that behalf by that entity, appointments could be made by that entity only in terms of the Scheme, Rules or Circular and a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not have jurisdiction to direct the Government or the authority concerned to go against its own scheme. The adage that hard facts make bad law should not be forgotten by Courts while dealing with such cases. Courts should not also be instrumental in ushering in arbitrariness in such matters when an authority has strictly followed what it has itself set out as part of the scheme. Unless the Court is in a position to strike down the very scheme, the Court cannot direct a departure from that scheme. We have therefore no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Judge who made the reference that the decisions directing consideration of application filed beyond the time fixed by the Scheme or the Rules governing the Institution cannot be taken to lay down the Court law. We overrule those decisions.
6. Since in this case, the application by the petitioner was not made within one year of the death of his father, the rejection of his claim by the Central Coalfields Limited is fully justified and is in consonance with the Scheme. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief at the hands of this Court. This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
N.N. Tiwari, J.
7. I agree.