SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 404

2012 (4) Supreme 94
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Dr. B.S. Chauhan & Dipak Misra, JJ.)
Union of India & Anr. — Appellant(s)
versus
Shashank Goswami & Anr. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No(s). 6224 of 2008
Decided on 23-05-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Financial condition of the family is important factor for compassionate appointment.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Cannot be claimed as a matter of right – The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family – Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed in a particular class/group of post. (Para 10)

        (b) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Has to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions – Financial condition of the family of the deceased must be taken into account – Rules fixing ceiling of income for compassionate appointment in different class/group – Appellant getting excluded – Denial of appointment not improper. (Para 15)

        (2004) 7 SCC 265; (2004) 7 SCC 271; (2008) 11 SCC 384 – Relied upon

        (2005) 10 SCC 289 – Per incuriam

       Facts of the case:

        This is a case of compassionate appointment.

       Finding of the Court:

        Appellant is not eligible for compassionate appointment.

       

ORDER

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.28535 of 2006 directing the appellants herein to reconsider application of respondent no.1 on compassionate grounds.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that one Anand Kishore Gautam working as Senior Accountant in the office of the Accountant General, Allahabad died on 19.3.2001 in harness, leaving behind two sons aged about 20 and 19 years and a daughter, aged about 17 years and Smt. Rashmi Gautam, his widow.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, which came to be rejected by the appellants on 28.1.2004 in view of the prevailing scheme for appointments on compassionate grounds. Under the scheme, vacancies could be filled up on compassionate grounds only upto 5% of the cadre strength falling under direct recruitment quota during a year in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts. The scheme further lays down that the total income of the family from all sources including terminal benefits after death, excluding G.P.F., should be taken into consideration. So far as the post of Group ‘C’ is concerned, the scheme provides that in case the family gets more than Rs.3 lakhs, the dependent of the deceased would not be eligible for employment on compassionate ground.

4. Respondent No.1 could not be offered appointment on the ground that excluding G.P.F. amount, his family had received a sum of Rs.4,40,908/- in addition to family pension of Rs.3,100/- per month granted to Mrs. Rashmi Gautam. She was entitled to get the said family pension at least for seven years and thereafter, the family pension would be Rs.1,860/- per month plus other reliefs admissible on pension.

5. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 28.1.2004 rejecting his claim, before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad vide Original Application No. 728 of 2004, wherein the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 7.12.2005 quashed the order dated 28.1.2004 and directed the appellants herein to reconsider the case of respondent No.1.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred CMWP No.28535 of 2006 before the High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.

7. We have heard Mr. S.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. In spite of notice, the respondents did not enter appearance. The appeal is pending for the last four years before this Court.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had to consider the applications for employment on compassionate grounds only within the parameters and terms and conditions incorporated in the scheme laid down for that purpose. The scheme makes a person ineligible for the post in Group ‘C’, in case, on the death of the incumbent on the post, the family gets retiral benefits/terminal benefits exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs.

9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enabl
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top