Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NARESH TANWAR AND ARN. ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. In both these
matters, the question of compassionate employment of the
heir of the deceased employee of the Haryana State
Electricity Board is required to be considered. In the first
matter concerning SLP (C) No. 7878/95 the ex-employee of the
Haryana State Electricity Board died on 18.11.80. The widow
of the deceased-employee made an application inter alia
indicating therein that she had not married and she had
three minor children, the eldest of them having been born in
1972. As per the existing Circular for giving relief to the
distressed member of the family of the deceased-employee,
ex-gratia payment was given to the widow of the family. It
is only in 1992 the representation was made by the
respondent - the mother of the Naresh Tanwar, the son of the
deceased-employee that since the son had attained majority
by that time, he should be given appointment on
compassionate ground. Such representation was, however,
rejected and, therefore, a writ petition was moved before
the Punjab and Haryana High Court and by the impugned
judgment, the High Court has directed that such
compassionate appointment should be given to the respondent-
Naresh Tanwar. In this appeal, the said judgment is
impugned.
In the appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 13708/95, an ex-
employee of Haryana State Electricity Board died on 16.3.75
and a representation was made by the widow of the deceased-
employee in October. 1988 for appointment of the son of the
widow of the employee by contending that by that time, the
minor son had attained majority and, therefore, eligible to
be given appointment. Such representation was rejected by
the State Electricity Board but the writ petition filed by
the respondent Sonana Devi the widow of the said ex-employee
has been allowed by the impugned judgment by directing the
State Electricity Board to give appointment to the son of
the said respondent Sohana Devi being the near of the
deceased-employee, on compassionate ground.
Learned counsel appearing for the State Electricity
Board in these matters have drawn our attention to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
decision of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of
Haryana and Ors. (1994 (4) SCC 138). In the said case, a
scheme was made for employee on the ground of compassionate
appointment. This court has not only held in the said
decision that no scheme for appointment to Class-II or Class
I shall be made by way of appointment on the score of
compassionate appointment, but it has been father indicated
in the said decision that:
"As a rule, appointments in the
public services should be made
strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and
merit. No other mode of appointment
hor any other consideration is
permissible. Neither the Government
hor the public authorities are at
liberty to follow any other
procedure or relax the
qualifications laid down by the
rules for the post. However, to
this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case,
there are some exceptions carved
but in the interests of justice and
to meet certain contingencies. One
such exception is in favour of the
respondents of an employee dying in
harness and leaving his family in
penury and without any means of
livelihood. In such cases, out of
pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact
that unless some source of
livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the
rules to provide gainful employment
to one of the dependants of the
deceased who may be eligible for
such employment. The whole object
of granting compassionate
employment is thus to enable the
family to tide over the sudden
crisis.
(Emphasis added)
The object is not to give a member
of such family a post much less a
post for post held by the deceased.
What is further, mere death of an
employee in harness does not
entitle his family to such source
livelihood. The Government or the
public authority concerned has to
examine the financial condition of
the family of the deceased, and it
is only if it is satisfied, that
but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be
able to meet the crisis that a job
is to be offered to the eligible
member of the family. The posts in
Classes III and IV are the lowest
posts in non-manual and manual
categories and hence they alone can
be offered on compassionate
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
grounds, the object being to
relieve the family, of the
financial destination and to help
it get over the emergency."
(Emphasis added)
It has been submitted before us that this Court has
very clearly indicated in the said judgment that the
consideration for compassionate employment must be treated
as an exception to the general rule for giving employment
only by making open recruitment and consideration of but of
turn employment on compassionate ground is intended to
enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused on
account of death of the earning member. Learned counsel has
also grown our attention to paragraph 6 of the decision
where it has been indicated:
"For these very reasons, the
compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of reasonable
period which must be specified in
the rules. The consideration for
such employment is not a vested
right which can be exercised at any
time in future. The object being to
enable the family to get over the
financial crisis which it faces at
the time of the death of the sole
breadwinner the compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and
offered whatever the lapse of time
and after the crisis is over."
(Emphasis added)
The learned counsel has also placed before us an
unreported decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad versus
State of Bihar (C.A.No.10682 of 1995) decided on November
13, 1995. In the said case, the question of appointment on
compassionate ground to an applicant who was four years old
at the time when his father an ex-employee died in harness,
came up for consideration. It was contended before this
Court that since the appellant was minor when the father
died in harness, the compassionate circumstances having
continued till the date he made an application for
appointment, he was entitled to be appointed on
compassionate ground. Such contention was not accepted by
the Court below and upholding the rejection of such claim
for appointment. this Court has indicated to the following
effect:
"The very object of appointment of
a dependent of the deceased
employees who die in harness is to
relieve unexpected immediate
hardship and distress caused to the
family by sudden demise of the
earning member of the family. Since
the death occurred way back in
1971, in which year, the appellant
was four years old. it cannot be
said that he is entitled to be
appointed after he attained
majority long thereafter. In other
words, if that contention is
accepted, it amounts to another
mode of recruitment of the
dependent of a deceased Government
servant which cannot be encouraged.
be hors the recruitment rules."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
It has been submitted before us by the learned counsel
appearing for the State Electricity Board that previously
there was no scheme to give appointment to the members of
the ex-employee dying in harness, but considering the
indigent condition of the members of the family, provision
to give monetary assistance within a limit to be determined
by the concerned authority was made and such scheme has also
been annexed to the SLP (C) No. 7878 of 1995. Later on some
of the circulars issued by the Government for giving
compassionate appointment to the heirs of the ex-employee in
government service dying in harness, were adopted. It
appears from the annexures referred to the SLPs 7878/95 and
SLP 13708/95 that previously there was no time limit within
which an application was required to be made for getting
appointment on compassionate ground. Subsequently it was
confined that within a period of one year such application
was required to be made. The said time frame was later on
extended to a period of three years from the date of death
of the ex-employee. The learned counsel has submitted that
although at the relevant time when the ex-employee died in
both the civil writ petitions, no time limit for making
application was indicated, but such application was required
to be made within a reasonable time and in any event, the
very purpose of compassionate appointment being to give
immediate assistance to the members of the family of the ex-
employee will be frustrated if such concession is allowed to
be extended over the veers so that by such long lapse of
time the heir of the deceased-employee attains majority and
then becomes eligible for being considered for appointment.
By the impugned judgments, the High Court proceeded on
the footing that compassionate appointment to achieve its
purpose cannot be restricted within the time frame of three
years and if assistance to the members of the deceased
employee is required to be given, the family member must
necessarily attain majority and then become eligible to
apply for getting appointment.
It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal (Supra) that compassionate appointment cannot be
granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very
purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the
general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the
immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of
the family of the deceased employee. In the other decision
of this Court in Jagdish Prasad ’s case, it has been also
indicated that the very object of appointment of dependent
of deceased-employee who died in harness is to relieve
immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by
sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such
consideration cannot be kept binding for years.
It appears to us that the principle of compassionate
appointment as indicated in the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, is not only reasonable but consistent with the
principle of employment in government and public sector. The
impugned decisions of the High Court therefore can not be
sustained.
In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned
judgments by allowing both the appeals. This order, however,
will not preclude the concerned applicants to make
representations to the State Electricity Board for
consideration of the case of their appointment either as a
temporary or permanent employee by giving full details of
the family circumstances and the economic conditions. It is
reasonably accepted that if such representation is made, the
concerned authority, namely, the Haryana State Electricity
Board will consider the same with such sympathy as the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
applicant may deserve in the facts of the case.