Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 867
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8540 OF 2024
TINKU … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. This Appeal has been preferred by the son of Shri Jai
Prakash, a deceased constable in Haryana Police,
seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as
his father and another constable died while on duty
on 22.11.1997. The Appellant then was seven years
of age, and the policy which was in force was dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2024.11.13
16:45:51 IST
Reason:
08.05.1995 which provided for ex-gratia appointment
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 1 of 17
confined to Class III and IV posts. The widow of
Balwan Singh, the other police constable, who died
along with the father of the Appellant, was granted
compassionate appointment as a constable upon her
application.
2. The mother of the Appellant, being illiterate, could not
seek an appointment for herself and therefore applied
for compassionate appointment for her son, the
Appellant herein. A letter from the Director General of
Police, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “DGP”)
dated 15.04.1998 was received by the Superintendent
of Police on 20.04.1998 directing the name of the
Appellant, Tinku, son of deceased Constable
Jaiprakash, to be entered in the Minor’s Register No.
47. This indicated the intention of the authorities of
reserving one post for grant of employment to the
Appellant at a later stage being minor child of
deceased employee as per the applicable policy.
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 2 of 17
3. Since the Appellant was a minor, his claim was kept
pending. A further communication from the office of
the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, dated
30.12.2003, was received by the mother of the
Appellant that on attainment of the age of majority,
the Appellant should approach the Office of the
Welfare Inspector to get the case prepared. It is on
this basis that the Appellant approached the DGP by
way of representation dated 30.10.2008 putting forth
his claim for appointment under the ex-gratia scheme,
specifying therein that he had attained the age of
majority on 10.10.2008. His mother also submitted a
representation to the DGP, making reference to the
earlier communications as mentioned above for the
grant of appointment on compassionate grounds as
per the policy.
4. The claim of the Appellant was considered, and
communication was received from the DGP dated
28.04.2009 addressed to the Superintendent of Police,
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 3 of 17
Rohtak, with a copy thereof to the mother of the
Appellant intimating rejection of the claim for
appointment on compassionate grounds. The reason
assigned was that from the date of death of the
Appellant’s father till he having become major 11 years
had passed rendering the claim time barred when
taken from the date of death of the father of the
Appellant. For this reliance was placed on the
Government instructions dated 22.03.1999 where a
minor dependent of a deceased government employee
gets the benefit provided he/she attains age of
majority within a period of three years from the date
of death of the government employee. It was further
intimated that, as per the “Haryana Compassionate
Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased
Government Employees” Rules, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as the “2006 Rules”), which were then in
force, whereunder the claim was considered, did not
contain provision for providing a job under the ex-
gratia scheme.
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 4 of 17
5. Faced with this situation, the Appellant had preferred
a writ petition before the High Court in the year 2009,
with the plea of promissory estoppel in the light of
communications received referred to above. The writ
was dismissed on 12.01.2021 holding therein that the
principle of estoppel would not be applicable to the
case in hand as it was only a communication which
was sent to the petitioner with regard to the name
having been entered in the minor’s register, while the
subsequent communication from the Superintendent
of Police was for approaching the authority on the
attainment of the age of majority by the ward. An
aspect with regard to the delay from the date of death
of the father of the Appellant till the date of he having
attained majority which is around 11 years also
weighed on the mind of the Court in the light of the
law as has been laid down by this Court in Umesh
1
Kumar Nagpal State of Haryana .
v.
1
1994 (4) SCC 138
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 5 of 17
6. An intra court appeal preferred by the Appellant
resulted in the dismissal of the same on 22.03.2022,
leading to the filing of the present Appeal.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, by making
reference to additional documents submitted that
there has been violation of the right of equality relating
to consideration for appointment under the ex-gratia
policy, as it is asserted that in similar factual matters
the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds
had been granted. It has been asserted that since the
Appellant is similarly placed, he should be granted the
same benefit. A reference in this regard has been made
to Annexures A-1 appended along with the Appeal.
8. A perusal of the above would indicate that the said
benefit of appointment on attaining the age of
majority, irrespective of the period having lapsed from
the date of death of the parent, had been granted prior
to 22.03.1999 when an outer limit of three years for
attainment of the age of majority from the date of
death of the deceased government employee was
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 6 of 17
introduced by the instructions. Further, in those
matters, the age of attainment of majority was also
prior to the coming into force of instructions dated
22.03.1999.
9. That apart, the claim as has been stated above, cannot
be accepted being not supported with any statutory
backing. This is required for making any claim
including a claim for compassionate appointment,
which is an exception to the general rule of
appointment requiring a proper advertisement and
selection process to be followed as per rules which is
an accepted norm. If some wrong benefit has been
conferred or some benefit which is contrary to the
scheme has been granted, it would not bestow a right
upon the others to claim it as a right of equality by
reference to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. There are catena of judgments of this Court that
clearly lay down the principles which govern such
claims. Some of which are Shanti Sports Club v.
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 7 of 17
2
Union of India , Chandigarh Administration v.
3 4
Jagjit Singh , R Muthukumar TANGEDCO ,
v.
Basawaraj & Anr v. Special Land Acquisition
5
Officer .
11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a
concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be
invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No
direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the
State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity
committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even
a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy
or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an
illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim
on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put
forth before a court nor would court be bound to
accept such plea. The court will not compel the
authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such
2
(2009) 15 SCC 705
3
(1995) 1 SCC 745
4
(2022) SCC Online SC 151
5
(2013) 14 SCC 81
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 8 of 17
claims are entertained and directions issued, that
would not only be against the tenets of the justice but
would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a
causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness.
The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook
the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have
legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that
too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without
legal basis or justification.
12. As regards the compassionate appointment being
sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment,
suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of
service of an employee who dies in harness, which
must be given to the dependent without any kind of
scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an
appointment which is given on proper and strict
scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with
an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary
financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 9 of 17
urgent situation where the sole bread earner has
expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless.
Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to
bail out a family of the deceased employee facing
extreme financial difficulty and but for the
employment, the family will not be able to meet the
crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant
fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy,
instructions, or rules for such a compassionate
appointment.
13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where
there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an
appointment on compassionate grounds, such an
appointment cannot be granted.
14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such
policies are framed for compassionate appointment is
with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and
facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out
to the general rule in favour of the family of the
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 10 of 17
deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into
consideration the services rendered by such employee
and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart
from the sudden change in status and affairs of the
family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e.
the loss of the sole bread earner.
15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give
immediate succour to the family. When seen in this
conspectus, three years as has been laid down from
the date of death of the employee for putting forth a
claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of
majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by
the Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in
any case unjustified or illogical, especially when
compassionate appointment is not a vested right.
16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record,
the Appellant attained majority 11 years after the
unfortunate death of his father. The claim, thus, has
rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 11 of 17
decisions of the High Court vide the impugned
judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus,
cannot be faulted with.
17. The claim of the Appellant for appointment on
compassionate grounds having been found to be not
sustainable, an aspect that has come to light which
requires consideration as has been put forth by the
learned Counsel for the Appellant, is with regard to the
grant of ex-gratia financial assistance. This is asserted
in the light of the fact that the claim of the Appellant
was pending consideration for compassionate
appointment for long with the respondents, and the
same had finally been decided on 28.04.2009 by
rejecting the same and that too primarily on the
ground that the said claim is time barred. It is further
stated that in the impugned Order dated 28.04.2009
that there is no provision for providing job under the
scheme in the 2006 Rules.
ex-gratia
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 12 of 17
18. Going by the stand of the respondents, it is apparent
that the claim of the Appellant was considered under
2006 Rules which were enforced with effect from
01.08.2006. These Rules apart from other aspects
provide for the manner of dealing with the pending
cases. Rule 8, which relates to repeal and savings,
mentions the earlier prevalent rules, namely the
Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the
Dependents of the Deceased Government Employee
Rules, 2005. The first proviso thereto states that the
families would have the option to opt for the lump sum
ex-gratia grant provided in the Rules of 2003 or 2005,
as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly financial
assistance provided under the 2006 Rules.
19. Therefore, as per these 2006 Rules, the claim of
dependents of the deceased employee would enure for
consideration to ex-gratia compensation. The said
claim, therefore, as far as the widow of the deceased is
concerned, would survive and operate, especially in
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 13 of 17
light of the fact that her son, for whom she had sought
an appointment on compassionate grounds has been
found to be ineligible because of he being a minor. A
further perusal of the 2003 and 2005 Rules would
show that the pending cases were to be dealt with
under those rules.
20. The admitted factual position is that all through the
claim of employment of the Appellant was pending
with the respondents and consequently the right of
consideration of claim for ex-gratia compensation
would also subsist. Given an option, the mother of the
Appellant could have sought the benefit of such
compensation had she been informed in time about
the non-acceptance of her request for employment of
her minor son. She was kept waiting for a final
decision on the claim till its rejection in 2009.
21. The Government of Haryana had taken a conscious
decision on 16.03.2011 granting a mercy chance as
one-time measure to exercise option for ex-gratia
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 14 of 17
compensation. A perusal of the said decision would
show that it was a one-time relaxation for applying for
ex-gratia compensation in old cases pertaining to the
claims before 01.08.2006. This was done having
regard to the fact that in old cases where the family of
the deceased employee could not exercise the option
within time, due to lack of requisite knowledge or other
reasons because of which their dependents could not
avail the benefit under the ex-gratia scheme being
time-barred. Such dependents were, accordingly,
given one more chance to give an option.
22. Admittedly, this decision of the government was never
brought to the notice of the mother of the Appellant. It
could not be disputed that no intimation whatsoever
had been sent to the widow of the deceased
government employee regarding the exercise of such
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 15 of 17
an option. Had she been informed, she could have
applied for the grant of ex-gratia compensation. The
inaction on the part of the State in intimating her of
her entitlement to put forth the claim is the reason for
she having not opted for it.
23. It would thus be just and reasonable that one
opportunity is granted to the widow of the deceased
government employee, Jai Prakash and the mother of
the Appellant, to make a representation for exercising
her option for the grant of lump sum ex-gratia
compensation. We permit her to do so. On
submission of the representation, the same shall be
considered by the competent authority and a decision
taken thereon within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt thereof. The lumpsum compensation,
if granted and released within the time stipulated
above, shall not carry any interest. However, if a
decision is not made and if found entitled, the amount
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 16 of 17
not disbursed within the stipulated time, interest at
the rate of 6 per cent per annum shall be payable from
the date of representation till the date of actual
payment.
24. The present Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
25. There shall be no order as to costs.
26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
…………………………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
…………………………………….J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
……………………………………..J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 13, 2024.
Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 17 of 17