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) 926

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SWATANTER KUMAR & SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Director General of Posts & Others
Versus
K. Chandrashekar Rao
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9049 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19871 of 2009) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9050 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19872 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9051 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21910 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9053 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23211 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9054 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23212 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9055 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23213 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9056 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23214
Decided on : 13-12-2012

Headnote:Service Law-Termination-Compassionate appointment-Generosity once extended in form of exercise of a subordinate legislative power by formulating Scheme, will have force of law-State has to abide by Scheme it has floated for compassionate appointment-Competent authority should issue comprehensive guidelines squarely covering the issue, but they cannot tamper with existing rights of appointees-Spirit of Scheme was to provide relief to family members of deceased persons and on yardstick of social justice, such relief cannot be withdrawn on ground of some alleged discrepancy which has not been supported by any data-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29 and 30)

       (2003)9 SCC 129; (2000)6 SCC 493-Relied.

       

JUDGMENT :-

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Leave granted in all the SLPs.

2. By this common judgment we shall dispose of all the above mentioned appeals which are directed against the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed on different dates vide which the Court, while relying upon its judgment dated 23rd July, 2008 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 15820/2008, has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the concerned government authority.

3. Thus, it is not necessary for us to notice the facts of each appeal separately. Though, the judgments are of different dates, they are primarily based upon the judgment of the High Court dated 23rdJuly, 2008. For the purpose of convenience, we would be referring to the facts of SLP(C) No.19871/2009.

FACTS:

4. The Department of Personnel and Training (for short ‘DoPT’), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India, issued a memorandum dated 9th October, 1998 containing the scheme for compassionate appointment with an object to give a source of employment to the dependent family members of the government servant dying in harness or one who has retired on medical grounds. This scheme was declared on 9th October, 1998. The scheme stipulated that the compassionate appointment could be made upto a maximum of 5 per cent of the vacancies falling under Direct Recruitment Quota in Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ post.

5. According to the appellants, the scheme of compassionate appointment is always treated as an exception to the general rule of recruitment.

6. The father of the respondent was employed with the appellants in a Group ‘D’ post. Unfortunately, the father of the respondent died on 19th April, 2000.

7. On 16th May, 2001, the DoPT issued an office memorandum in view of the policy of the Government of India that fresh recruitment should be limited to one per cent of the total strength of civilian staff. The basis for the same appeared to be that about three per cent of the staff retired every year and thus, the reduction in manpower would reduce to 2% p.a. if fresh recruitment is limited to 1% p.a. This would achieve a deduction of ten percent in five years. It was decided that each Ministry and Department would formulate an Annual Direct Recruitment Plan through the mechanism of Screening Committee. Para 2.2 of this memorandum provided that while preparing the Annual Recruitment Plan, the concerned Screening Committee was to ensure that the direct recruitment did not exceed one per cent of the total sanctioned strength of the Department. Since three per cent of the staff retired every year, this would translate only to one- third of the Direct Recruitment vacancies occurring in each year being filled. Thus, the recruitment would be limited to filling one-third of the vacancies of Direct Recruitment arising in the year, subject to a further ceiling, that it does not exceed one percent of the total sanctioned strength of the Department. In terms of Para 2.4 of the memorandum, it was further stated that the vacancies so cleared by the Screening Committee will be filled up by applying rules for reservation, handicapped, compassionate quota therein.

8. However, the Special Circle Relaxation Committee, approved the names of the candidates in the category of compassionate appointment on the basis of 5 per cent of the existing vacancies occurring in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002. In face of the memorandum dated 16thMay, 2001, on or about 13th March, 2002, 69 names were approved. On 4th July, 2002, the DoPT issued a clarificatory memorandum that the five per cent quota for compassionate appointment was to be calculated on the basis of direct recruitment vacancies finally cleared by the Screening Committee and not on the basis of the total vacancies occurring in the Department. The respondent, on 6th August, 2002 was communicated the intimation with regard to the approval of his name for appointment to Group ‘D’ post, which he joined on 22nd August, 2002.

.9. It i











































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