1. Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment after husband's death in harness — representation rejected. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1988
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Variava : S.R.Babu
Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Nellore
Versus
C.M.Pavana Kumari
Case No. : 2455 of 1998
Date of Decision : 12/6/00
A court cannot direct the creation of a post for appointment, especially during an appointment ban; however, claims for compassionate appointment must be considered in accordance with the established scheme.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Direction to create a post - Court below directed that the spouse of a deceased employee be appointed within three months and, in the absence of a vacancy, a post be created for such appointment - When there is a ban on appointments, directing the creation of a post is totally unwarranted (Para 2).
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Consideration of representation - Where an employee dies in harness, the case of the dependent for appointment should be considered in accordance with the scheme framed for compassionate appointments - A representation for such appointment should not be rejected without being considered against the framed scheme (Para 2).
Facts of the case:
The respondent, spouse of a deceased employee who died in harness while working as a conductor, filed a writ petition seeking a Class-IV appointment. The court below directed the respondent to be appointed within three months or that a post be created to facilitate the appointment.
Findings of Court:
The direction to create a post is extraordinary and unwarranted, particularly in light of a ban on appointments. However, as the employee died in harness, the respondent's case for appointment must be considered according to the established scheme for compassionate appointments.
Issues: Whether the court below was justified in directing the employer to create a post for the appointment of the spouse of a deceased employee on compassionate grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot direct the creation of a post for employment, especially during an appointment ban; however, the employer is required to consider a claim for compassionate appointment in alignment with the scheme formulated for such purposes.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent claimed representation not properly considered; High Court ordered appointment with post creation. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Order to create a post during appointment ban was extraordinary and unwarranted. (Para 2 )
4. Compassionate appointment claim must be considered per the existing scheme, not by creating posts. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal partly allowed — directed consideration of respondent's case under the compassionate appointment scheme. (Para 2 )
6. When should a court order creation of a post for compassionate appointment?
A court should not direct creation of a post, especially during an appointment ban; instead, the claim must be considered under the existing scheme. (Para 2 )
7. What is the proper approach for considering compassionate appointment claims?
The claim must be considered in accordance with the scheme framed for compassionate appointments, not by bypassing procedural rules. (Para 2 )
(1) THE respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court stating that her representation to provide Class-IV appointment to her, had not been appropriately considered but rejected. The High Court without looking to the facts arising in the case directed that she be appointed by providing suitable job within a period of three months from the date of the order and if there is no post, to create a post and make such appointment.
(2) WE are constrained to state that the order made by the High Court is somewhat extraordinary. In the normal course when there is a ban on the appointments to be made, question of directing the respondent to create a post and appoint the petitioner before the High Court was totally unwarranted. However, we think that in view of the fact that the respondents husband having died in harness who was working as a conductor in the establishment of the appellant it is proper that her case should be considered in accordance with the scheme that is framed for making appointment on compassionate grounds. The representation made by the respondent should not have been rejected but should have i considered the same in accordance with the scheme framed for the said purpose. Hence, we modify the order made by the High Court in the aforesaid terms and direct that the case of the respondent should be considered for appointment in accordance with the scheme framed. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly.
