Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6019 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.16404 of 2018)
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
TELECOMMUNICATION, BSNL & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VIDYA PRASAD RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad granting compensation to the
respondent of Rs.10 lakhs in lieu of compassionate
appointment which was arbitrarily denied to him by the
Officers of the appellants.
The brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose
are that the father of the sole respondent while working as
a Telephone Mechanic died while in service on 07.02.2003.
The respondent submitted his application seeking
compassionate appointment on 15.10.2004 and formalities
were completed by him as demanded by the Department on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2021.10.01
18:25:59 IST
Reason:
03.07.2005. The Scheme which was applicable at the time of
death of his father and also the date on which he submitted
his application for compassionate appointment with all
2
formalities being complied with was of year 1998 in vogue
for seeking compassionate appointment.
It is not disputed by the appellants that in terms of
the Scheme of 1998, the respondent was eligible in seeking
compassionate appointment. The new Scheme (weightage point
system Scheme) in supersession of the 1998 Scheme was
introduced by the appellants on 27.06.2007 and immediately
thereafter the candidature of the respondent was considered
by the Committee constituted seeking compassionate
appointment and after consideration the application was
rejected pursuant to a communication dated 15.09.2007 and
the reason for rejection of his application is referred as
under:
Late Shri Ram Bux Ex.P/M TDM Etawah, expired
on 07.02.2003 at the age of about 52 years and
Eight month survived by his wife and two son
including Shri Vidhya Prasad Widow Smt. Badala
Devi is getting pension of Rs.3170/- per month and
living in own house.
As per standing instructions dated 27.06.2007
BSNL HQ for offering compassionate ground
appointment weightage point system has been
provided in respect of items with positive points
and negative points, (a) cases with 55 or more Net
Points shall be prima facie treated as eligible
for consideration by BSNL HQ High Power Committee
for compassionate ground appointment and (b) cases
with Net Points below 55 shall be treated as non
indigent and rejected.
That came to be challenged by the respondent initially
3
by filing an application before the Tribunal and further
travelled to the Division Bench of the High Court and this
is the ground reality that because of long pendency in
Courts, attention could not be paid to decide the matters
expeditiously and only because the delay being caused his
legitimate right of fair consideration seeking
compassionate appointment has been denied to him.
The Division Bench of the High Court under the
impugned judgment observed that although he has a right of
fair consideration in seeking compassionate appointment but
by the time matter travelled to the Division Bench of High
Court, he crossed the age of 50 years and it was considered
not possible to permit him of seeking employment. Taking
totality of the matter into consideration in lieu of
employment granted him a lumpsum compensation of a sum of
Rs.10 lakhs.
We have heard counsel for the parties for quite some
time and we are of the view that delay was admittedly
attributable to the appellants in not putting heed to the
application submitted for seeking compassionate
appointment.
In the given case, either on the death of his father
or on the date on which he submitted his application for
compassionate appointment, the Scheme of 1998 was in vogue
for seeking compassionate appointment, and as observed he
was eligible under the Scheme 1998 but his application
remained pending until the new Scheme was introduced on
4
27.06.2007 and thereafter rejected by a letter dated
15.09.2007.
The facts are conspicuous and manifest in that the
delay in entertaining the application for fair
consideration in seeking employment submitted by the
respondent is indisputably attributable to the appellants
and for the afore-stated reason, he has been deprived of
seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise
entitled to under the Scheme of 1998. It is always said
that delay denies justice and the present respondent became
victim of the total inaction on the part of the appellants
and its officials in not putting heed to the application
which was submitted by the family of the deceased employee,
who died while in service. The indigent family who has
lost their bread winner in seeking compassionate
appointment to which one of the dependent was otherwise
entitled to under the law because of irresponsible attitude
and red tapism which is prevalent in the office of the
appellants.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that by the
time the matter travelled to the Division Bench of the High
Court, the respondent crossed the age of 50 years and
certainly it was not possible to consider him for
employment at such a belated stage, but the respondent at
least could not have been left in lurch.
Taking into consideration the totality of the matter,
we consider it appropriate that the respondent be entitled
5
at least for a cost of Rs.5 lakhs to be imposed on the
appellants of causing delay in passing appropriate orders
on his application which was furnished by him for seeking
compassionate appointment.
Consequently, the judgment of the High Court impugned
dated 13.12.2017 is modified as stated above and the appeal
is accordingly disposed of. The payment of Rs.5 lakhs shall
be made over to the respondent within a period of four
weeks from today, failing which he will be entitled for
interest @ 9% per annum until actual payment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
............... J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
............... J.
(ABHAY S OKA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 28, 2021