Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1616 of 2008
PETITIONER:
A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Sarvarunnisa Begum
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2008
BENCH:
P.P. Naolekar & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1616 OF 2008
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17587 of 2005)
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.:
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent’s husband died in harness while in service of
the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the
Corporation"). The respondent-widow submitted an application
expressing her willingness to accept additional monetary benefit in
lieu of employment as per the Scheme. The appellant-Corporation
gave additional monetary benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent
in lieu of her not claiming any employment in the Corporation.
Subsequently, the respondent made a request that the additional
monetary benefit may be taken back and to provide her employment
on compassionate grounds. When the Corporation refused, she filed
a writ petition in the High Court, claiming compassionate
appointment. Learned Single Judge of the High Court held that
merely because additional monetary benefits are given to the
respondent, her case for appointment on compassionate grounds
cannot be rejected, and gave direction to consider the case of the
respondent for appointment under "Bread Winner Scheme".
Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, the appellant-Corporation
filed writ appeal. Although there was no appeal filed by the
respondent, the Division Bench of the High Court modified the order
of the Single Judge to the extent of directing appointment of the
respondent to the post of Conductor/Attender, whichever available,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of
the order and for refund of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by the
respondent on such appointment. This order is under challenge
before us.
3. This Court time and again has held that the compassionate
appointment would be given to the dependent of the deceased who
died in harness to get over the difficulties on the death of the bread-
earner. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and
Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court has held as under:
"The whole object of granting compassionate
employment is to enable the family to tide over the
sudden crisis. 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 of
livelihood. The Government or the public authority
concerned has to examine the financial condition of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 post in non-manual and manual
categories and hence they alone can be offered on
compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the
family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over
the emergency.
Offering compassionate employment as a matter of
course irrespective of the financial condition of the family
of the deceased and making compassionate
appointments in posts above Classes III and IV, is legally
impermissible."
(Headnote-C)
4. In the present case, the additional monetary benefit has been
given to the widow apart from the benefits available to the widow after
the death of her husband to get over the financial constraints on
account of sudden death of her husband and, thus, as a matter of
right, she was not entitled to claim the compassionate appointment
and that too when it had not been brought to the notice of the Court
that any vacancy was available where the respondent could have
been accommodated by giving her a compassionate appointment.
That apart, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed an
error in modifying the direction of the Single Judge by directing the
Corporation to appoint the respondent when no appeal was preferred
by the respondent challenging order of the Single Judge.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the orders
of the High Court are set aside.