A compromise decree cannot confer compassionate-appointment rights against a non-party authority.

The Davanagere City Corporation, defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 686/2013, challenged under Article 227 a compromise decree dated 13 April 2018, insofar as it referred to plaintiff No. 3 seeking compassionate appointment.

The Corporation contended that it had neither been impleaded nor given notice, that plaintiff No. 3 was the deceased employee’s grandson, and that eligibility for appointment was governed by applicable rules which a private compromise could not override.

The Corporation sought to have the relevant part of the decree quashed.

1. Whether the compromise decree could bind the Corporation, which was not a party to the compromise, by conferring an enforceable right to compassionate appointment on plaintiff No. 3.

2. Whether plaintiff No. 3’s eligibility for compassionate appointment must be determined independently under the rules applicable to the Corporation.

A compromise between parties to a civil proceeding cannot, merely because it is recorded as a decree, create or confer a right against a person or authority that was not a party to the compromise.

Eligibility for compassionate appointment is governed by the applicable statutory rules and regulations and cannot be enlarged or altered by a private arrangement between litigants.

The Court also noted that the Corporation had adopted the Karnataka Civil Services Rules governing compassionate appointment.

The Court held that the compromise decree’s reference to compassionate appointment could not, by itself, impose an obligation on the Corporation or establish plaintiff No. 3’s entitlement.

Because the Corporation was not a party to the compromise, it was not bound by that term.

Any application by plaintiff No. 3 therefore had to be assessed independently against the applicable rules, including the required relationship to the deceased employee and all other eligibility conditions; the decree could not predetermine that assessment.

The Corporation was left at liberty to consider any application by plaintiff No. 3 strictly under the applicable rules and regulations.

The Court clarified that the compromise decree, by itself, conferred no right to compassionate appointment.