Also Read - Karnataka High Court Upholds Prosecution Against Media for Disclosing Child Victim’s Identity Under JJ Act

The Supreme Court examined the scheme’s purpose and the employer’s duty to administer it fairly. The Bench observed that once the employee had applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds before attaining fifty‑five years and supported the application with a government medical certificate, the respondent‑company was required to scrutinise the application with reasonable promptitude. If the Civil Surgeon’s certificate was deemed insufficient, the company had to inform the employee of the deficiency before the age threshold expired. It could not remain silent until the employee crossed fifty‑five years and then rely on the consequence of its own delayed action to defeat the claim.

The Court emphasized that allowing the employer to benefit from its own delay would permit it to “control eligibility through delayed processing” and would defeat the beneficial intent of the compassionate appointment scheme. The Bench relied on the settled principle that no person should be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain a favourable interpretation of law, citing Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, wherein it was held that a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong.

Also Read - Allahabad High Court Clarifies Scope of Appeal under Section 22 of UP Urban Buildings Act

Applying that principle, the Supreme Court concluded that the basis for rejection – the alleged retirement after the age of fifty‑five – was unsustainable because the delay in informing the employee about the Medical Board requirement was attributable to the employer. Consequently, the denial of compassionate appointment could not be upheld. The claim, which had remained pending since 2016, was therefore allowed.

The judgment, authored by Justice Kotiswar Singh, directed New India Assurance Company Limited to grant compassionate appointment to the son of the employee. The Bench made clear that the employer’s procedural lapse cannot be used to circumvent the substantive entitlement created by the scheme, reinforcing the obligation of public sector entities to act diligently and in good faith when processing benefits intended for employees and their dependents.

Also Read - Special Lok Adalat Resolves Negotiable Instruments Act Cases Across Haryana