Entitlement to Compassionate Compensation Based on Regularization Status Inferred from Receipt of Family Pension

The appellant's father worked as a Hamal-cum-Peon in the hostel of L.D. Engineering College for over 40 years.

In 1990, he filed SCA No. 3602/1990 seeking regularization of his services, followed by SCA No. 10377/1996 after his representation went undecided; the latter was disposed of on 10.05.1999 with a direction to consider his representation.

Pursuant thereto, the Director, Technical Education appointed him on a temporary basis by office order dated 30.05.2000.

He died in harness on 11.09.2002.

The appellant was initially appointed on compassionate grounds on 01.10.2002 as a part-time daily wager at Rs. 1,350/- per month, but by order dated 02.12.2002 his services were discontinued on the ground that his father had not completed the five years of service stipulated in the G.R. dated 10.03.2000.

A further representation was rejected by order dated 16.01.2008.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, upholding the five-year condition, giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment could be rejected solely on the ground that his father had not completed five years of service under the G.R. dated 10.03.2000, notwithstanding the father's 40 years of prior service.

2. Whether the grant of family pension to the appellant's mother signified that the father's appointment was regular in nature, thereby entitling the family to consequential compassionate benefits.

3. Whether the policy decision in the G.R. dated 05.07.2011, providing lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment, was attracted to the appellant's case, and if so, the quantum payable.

G.R. dated 10.03.2000, which conditioned compassionate appointment upon the deceased employee having completed five years of service.

G.R. dated 05.07.2011, embodying a policy decision whereby the State substituted compassionate appointment with lump sum compensation computed on the basis of the deceased employee's remaining service, entitling the family to Rs. 4,00,000/- where less than ten years of service remained.

The service law principle that the grant of family pension is inconsistent with a purely temporary appointment and evinces that the employee was regarded as regularly appointed.

The Court reasoned that although the father had not completed five years of service post-appointment pursuant to the Court's direction, the indisputable fact remained that he had rendered over 40 years of service as a Hamal, and it was only on that footing that the State offered him appointment, albeit described as temporary.

Critically, the Court noted that upon the father's death, the State had paid family pension to the appellant's mother—a benefit that "would not arise" for a merely temporary appointee—thereby demonstrating that the State had all along treated the father as regularly appointed.

It followed as a corollary that the appellant was entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment.

In view of the subsequent policy shift effected by the G.R. dated 05.07.2011, which replaced compassionate appointment with monetary compensation, the Court held that policy attracted to the appellant's case.

Relying on the Service Register recording the father's date of birth as 25.02.1949, the Court computed that he would have served until 2009; having died in 2002, he had seven years of service remaining, i.e., less than ten years. Consequently, the prescribed compensation slab of Rs. 4,00,000/- applied.

The Court held that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider the matter from this perspective, rendering the conclusion improper and unsustainable.

The Court held that the appellant could not be denied compassionate consideration, as the grant of family pension established the regular character of the father's appointment; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.

The State was directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the family of the deceased employee within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court expressly clarified that the judgment was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.