Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 4660/2019
(@ SPECIAL Leave Petition (C) No. 24214 of 2018)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NIRVAL SINGH Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The respondent sought compassionate appointment on account of
the death of his father on 17.05.2004, who was working with the
appellants. On the date the application was submitted, the policy
for compassionate appointment dated 21.11.2002, is stated to have
been in force.
The respondent did not get any compassionate appointment and
it is the case of the appellants that the implementation of the
policy was kept in abeyance on account of the consideration of a
new policy. The new policy came into effect on 23.11.2004. The
respondent was sought to be granted the benefit under the new
policy in terms whereof solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs was offered to him.
In the alternative the respondent was also offered the benefit of
temporary post. He declined both the options.
For the first time the respondent approached any judicial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RACHNA
Date: 2019.05.09
17:36:02 IST
Reason:
forum in the year 2011 by filing a Writ Petition which was disposed
of on 12.03.2012 to consider his application in a time bound manner
1
as per policy. The petitioner, however, rejected the request. In
the second Writ Petition filed assailing this decision, the
respondent was relegated to the remedy of a civil suit as
requested. The respondent filed the civil suit where his suit was
initially dismissed but thereafter the appeal was allowed and in
terms of the impugned order the second appeal has also been
dismissed.
These orders are now sought to be assailed by the appellants.
The fundamental principle which has to be kept in mind is that
there is no inherent right to obtain a compassionate appointment
and such compassionate appointment has to be in accordance with the
existing policy as the objective is to ameliorate the condition of
the family at the relevant stage of time and it is the deviation
from the rule of merit.
Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our
attention to the Judgment of this Court in State Bank of India and
Another v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 where paragraphs 8 and 13
are as under:
“8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate
grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it
is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public
services should be on the basis of merit, by an open
invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons
to participate in the selection process. The dependants of
employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim
or right to employment, except by way of the concession that
may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a
separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get
over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate
appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed
by the employer for such employment and there is no right
whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the
scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not
after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that
when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking
appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless
2
saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the
scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in
favour of the applicant.
“13. Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the
new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all
pending applications will be considered only in terms of the
new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As
compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the
employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any
time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and
availability of posts.”
In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of
the respondent.
The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal
after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations.
The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the
family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy
having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force,
the application has been considered under the new policy and the
options available were offered to the respondent who failed to
avail of the same.
Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of the new
policy which reads as under:
“The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the
date of issue of instructions. The cases, where
compassionate employment has not been given due to
discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall also
be considered and requisite relief, in lieu compassionate
employment, shall be granted as per above policy
instructions.”
We are thus of the view that the offer of solatium could be
the only remedy available, more so at this stage of time.
3
th
The solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs was offered immediately on 19
September, 2004. We are informed that as per the current policy
the solatium has been revised to Rs. 5 lakhs. That being the
position and the respondent having been deprived of the benefit of
the amount, albeit by his own conduct, the interest of justice
would be served by directing that the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs be paid
to the respondent within two months from today.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
....................,J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
....................,J.
[INDIRA BANERJEE]
New Delhi.
May 6, 2019.
4
ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.14 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 4660/2019
(@ SPECIAL Leave Petition (C) No. 24214 of 2018)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NIRVAL SINGH Respondent(s)
(with IR)
Date : 06-05-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
For Appellant(s) Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.
Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Akshay Verma, AOR
Mr. Akashdeep Verma, Adv.
Mrs. Sushma Verma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable order,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA CHOPRA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)
5