1. Compassionate appointment claim by son of deceased government employee — Interpretation of one-step-below rule. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 105
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal : S.R.Babu
State Of Haryana
Versus
Vipin Kumar
Case No. : 4718 , 659 of 2000
Date of Decision : 1/23/02
In compassionate appointments, the requirement that a post be "one step below" the deceased employee's post means it must be lower by at least one step, but it does not have to be the immediate post below and may be lower.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Interpretation of “one step below” - The expression that appointment should be “one step below” means that the offer of appointment to the deceased employee's dependent is not to be on a post equivalent to the one held by the deceased employee, but should be on a lower post by at least one step - This does not necessarily mean the immediate post below; the appointed post could be even lower than that. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
A dependent of a deceased employee who died in harness applied for compassionate appointment. The appointing authority offered a post of Clerk. The dependent challenged this in the High Court, seeking appointment to a post carrying a pay scale one step below the pay scale of the deceased employee. The High Court ruled that the authority should have considered the case for a pay scale immediately lower than that of the deceased.
Findings of Court:
The view of the High Court was erroneous. Since the post offered to the respondent is at least one step below the post held by the deceased employee, the offer is correct.
Issues: Whether the requirement for a compassionate appointment to be “one step below” that of the deceased employee implies it must be the immediate post below or simply any post lower by at least one step.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the phrase "one step below" signifies that the appointment should not be equivalent to the deceased's post but must be lower by at least one step, and it is not restricted to the immediate post below and could be lower than that.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimant sought appointment in pay scale one step below deceased's; employer offered a lower post. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. One-step-below rule requires a post at least one step lower; not necessarily the immediate lower post. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Compassionate appointment need only be at least one step below deceased's post; may be even lower. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. High Court order set aside; writ petition dismissed; claimant may continue on offered post. (Para 3 , 5 )
6. What does the expression 'appointment should be one step below' mean under compassionate appointment rules?
It means the offered post must be at least one step lower than the deceased employee's post; it need not be the immediate lower post. (Para 2 , 3 )
(1) C.A. No. 4716/2000. The respondents father Kundan Singh who was Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the appellants died in harness on 2-1-1993, survived by his wife, son and two daughters. The widow of the said Kundan Singh applied for a compassionate appointment in accordance with the Instructions Issued by the appellants from time to time and ultimately an offer of appointment was made by the respondent in the post of Clerk in the Irrigation Department.
(2) NOT being satisfied with that offer, he filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking for a direction that he should be appointed to a post carrying one scale below the pay scale in which his father was drawing salary at the time of his death i.e. 2000-3200. The High Court took the view that the competent authority had not passed an appropriate order and It should have made an order in such a way that his case should have been considered for appointment in a pay scale lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 available in the Irrigation Department while the scale of fered to the respondent was Rs. 950-1500 which has been revised subsequently. In an identical matter this Court had occasion to examine < he scope of the said rules in State of Haryana and others V. Rajeev Deshwal SLP (C) No. 778 / 1999 disposed of on 22-3-1999 and Interpreted the expression that "appointment should be one step below" as follows :
"IN our opinion this Interpretation of the said clause by the High Court is erroneous. This clause means that the offer of appointment to the deceased employees dependant is not to be on post equivalent to the one which was held by the deceased employee but should be on a lower post by at least one step-Therefore, in the present case when the deceased employee was Deputy Superintendent of Police, the offering of the post of A.S.I. was not Incorrect ........."
(3) ALL that need to be done is that, post that is offered to the respondent claiming a post on compassionate ground, should be at least one step below that was held by the deceased employee and that does not mean it should be the Immediate post below It, It could be even lower than that. If that is the correct interpretation to be placed of the relevant rules, the post offered to the respondent appears to us to be correct. Hence the view of the High Court is erroneous. The order made by the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent Is dismissed. However, it Is made clear that as the respondent has joined the post as per the orders made by the Government , he may continue to serve on the said post. The appeal is allowed accordingly. C.A No. 659/2002 (Arising out of SLP(C) 13719/2000)
(4) LEAVE granted.
(5) THE questions raised In this appeal are identical to those considered by us in C.A. No. 4718/2000. For the reasons stated therein this appeal shall stand allowed in the same terms as set forth therein. Order accordingly.
