Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SAMIR K. SARKAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/1999
BENCH:
C.Banerjee, G.B.Pattanaik
JUDGMENT:
PATTANAIK, J.
Leave granted.
The West Bengal State Electricity Board has come in
appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court dated 30th June 1998 in M.A.T. No.
4271 of 1997 whereunder the High Court has directed the
appellants to consider the case of the private respondent
for appointment on compassionate grounds. The father of the
said respondent, Samir Kumar Sarkar was an employee under
the State Electricity Board and he died on 29th November
1996 at the age of 56 years 10 months and 15 days, which was
within two years from the scheduled date of his retirement
on superannuation. When the respondent applied for an
employment on compassionate ground, the Board rejected his
prayer on the ground that under the Rules in question
dealing with compassionate appointments, no appointment can
be given if the employee dies within two years from the
scheduled date of retirement on superannuation. The
respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition and the learned
Single Judge, in view of the Rules, dismissed the same. The
respondent went in appeal in the High Court. The Division
Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that
provision disentitling appointment on compassionate ground
if the employees dies within two years from the date of
superannuation only in respect of clauses (iii), (iv) and
(v) and not in case of clauses (i) and (ii) is
discriminatory and violative of Article 14. Therefore, the
High Court quashed that part of the order and directed
consideration of the case of respondent for compassionate
appointment. It is not disputed that the death of the
father of the respondent was on account of illness and it
was within two years from the date of superannuation. Mr.
V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that the concept of compassionate
appointment is itself a discretionary one. There is no
statutory rule governing such appointments, conferring an
enforceable right on the LRs of the deceased employee. The
idea to give such compassionate appointment is that the
children of the employee who dies in harness may not be
destitute on the road and can have a decent living. To
achieve that objective, several guidelines/criteria are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
fixed. The reason why the embargo in question does not
apply to clauses (i) and (ii) but apply to clauses (iii),
(iv) and (v) is for an avowed purpose inasmuch as in clause
(i) and (ii), the death having occurred due to accident
arising out of and in course of employment and total
disablement due to accident in course of employment whereas
under clauses (iii), (iv) and (v), the death is not in any
way connected with the employment and, therefore, there is a
reasonable basis for the classification in question and the
High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion
that such classification is discriminatory. In order to
appreciate the contention raised by Mr. V.R. Reddy,
learned senior counsel for the appellants, the relevant
office order is quoted herein below in extenso: The Board
is pleased to make provision for consideration for
employment of a dependent of deceased employee in the
following circumstances and subject to condition as
mentioned hereunder:-
i) In case of death of an employee due to accident
arising out of and in course of employment;
ii) Employees rendered totally disabled due to an
accident arising out of an in course of employment;
iii) Employees dying in harness;
iv) Employees reported missing subject to observance
of formalities as prescribed by the Board;
v) Employees declared lunatic by appropriate
authority.
No employment would however, be considered in the
following circumstances:
a) Where the death under (iii) above or the incident
under (iv) or the declaration under (v) above takes place in
the proceeding two years from the scheduled date of
retirement on superannuation of the concerned employees.
b) Where a dependent of the deceased, affected
employee is already in employment of the Board irrespective
of the date of securing such employment.
An analysis of the different clauses providing for
compassionate appointment in case of death of the employee
would indicate that clauses (i), (ii) deal with death
arising out of and in course of employment or total
disablement arising out of and in course of employment
whereas clauses (iii) and (iv) have no relationship with the
employment in question In that view of the matter, we find
sufficient force in contention of Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants that there is a
reasonable classification and consequently the embargo that
no employment would be considered when criteria under
clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) are satisfied, if such criteria
happens to be within two years from the scheduled date of
retirement on superannuation, cannot be held to be
discriminatory. The High Court, therefore, was totally in
error to hold that the embargo is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution. We, accordingly, set aside the said
conclusion of the High Court and hold that the embargo
contained in clause (a) is valid. On the admitted position
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
that the death of the father of the respondent occurred on
29th November 1996 which is within two years preceding to
the date of superannuation, the respondent will not be
entitled to an compassionate appointment under the office
order dated 15th March 1993 which deals with the criteria
for such appointment. We, therefore, set aside the impugned
judgment of the Calcutta High Court and allow this appeal.
But as there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent,
there will be no order as to costs.