Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1111
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Danish Khan - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7802, 7803 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4772, 13139 of 2017)
Decided on : 04-10-2019
For the Petitioner(s):Salman Khurshid, Imtiaz Ahmed, Naghma Imtiaz, Ahmed Zargham, Ahmed Farz, K.V.Kharlyngdoh, Amna Darakhshan, M/s. Equity Lex Associates, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Raghavendra S.Srivatsa, Pai Amit, Anish R. Shah, Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Garima Bajaj, Sanyat Lodha, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Regulation 4(3) of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 cannot be said to be discriminatory.
(2) Article 14 of Constitution does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation.
Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 – Regulation 4(3) – Corporation has carved out two classes of dependants of deceased employees in respect of claims for compassionate appointment – Reason for disqualification of dependants of an employee who died in an accident involving vehicle of Corporation is to avoid extra burden on Appellant- Corporation – In such cases, Appellant- Corporation has to pay compensation under the Act and also to provide compassionate appointment to dependants of deceased employee – In a case where vehicle of Appellant- Corporation is not involved in accident, compensation under the Act is not the liability of Appellant- Corporation – It cannot be said that dependents of an employee who claim both compensation under the Act and compassionate appointment from Appellant- Corporation are on same footing as dependants of deceased employee whose claim under the Act against a private owner or an insurance company, and compassionate appointment from Appellant- Corporation. (Para 7)
(B) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 – Regulation 4(3) – Constitution of India – Article 14 – Compassionate Appointment – Classification of claimants – Dependents of a deceased employee who claim compensation from Corporation under the Act and compassionate appointment from Appellant-Corporation form a separate class – Though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation – When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied – First test is that classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of group and second test is that differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question – Intention with which Regulation 4(3) is made is to obviate liability of Corporation in payment of compensation under the Act and to provide compassionate appointment to same person – There is a rational nexus between basis of classification and object sought to be achieved by the Regulation – Dependants of employees who have died in an accident while travelling in a vehicle belonging to Corporation and dependents of employees who died while travelling in a vehicle not belonging to Corporation are not similarly situated in respect of their claims against Corporation – They cannot be treated as equals – Regulation 4(3) cannot be said to be discriminatory – As Respondent has received compensation under the Act, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment under Regulations – Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the Case:
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has filed Appeal aggrieved by judgment of Rajasthan High Court of Judicature, Jaipur Bench by which Regulation 4(3) of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 has been declared as violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Question that arises for consideration is whether High Court was right in holding that Regulation 4(3) is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of Constitution.
Findings of the Court:
Having held that the classification of two categories of dependents of deceased employees is reasonable, what remains to be examined is whether there is a rationale nexus of the classification with the objective sought to be achieved by the Regulations 4(3). Intention with which Regulation 4(3) is made is to obviate liability of Corporation in payment of compensation under the Act and to provide compassionate appointment to the same person. There is a rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved by Regulation.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) has filed the above Appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court of Judicature, Jaipur Bench by which Regulation 4(3) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 (for short, ‘the Regulations’) has been declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. The Respondent’s father Mohd. Shahid who was working as a Helper in the Appellant-Corporation died in a motor accident. He was travelling in a bus of the Appellant-Corporation which collided with another bus. A claim was made by the Respondent before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tonk (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). An amount of Rs.1,35,50,000/-was claimed, but the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.22,95,775/-.
3. The Respondent made a representation to the Chief Manager of the Appellant-Corporation seeking compassionate appointment. The request for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the Respondent was not entitled in light of Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations. Dissatisfied with the rejection of the request for compassionate appointment, the Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Regulation 4(3). The High Court allowed the Writ Petition by a judgment dated 29.08.2016 on the ground that Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. The High Court held that the object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the family members of the bread-winner and for that reason compassionate appointment should be provided to the family in distress. According to Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations, claim for both compassionate appointment and compensation under the Act cannot be made against the Corporation in case of death of an employee while travelling in the vehicle of the Appellant-Corporation. Regulation 4(3) was found to be discriminatory because compassionate appointment can be provided to an employee who dies in an accident while travelling in a vehicle not belonging to the Corporation though he had claimed compensation either from the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company, under the Act.
5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations which is as follows:
“On the occasion of death of any employee of the Corporation while performing his duty or a vehicular death by the vehicle belonging to the Corporation. If the legal representatives of the deceased employee seek compensation from the Corporation by filing a claim petition before the accident tribunal and the same is awarded or the matter remains pending before the tribunal. In such a case the Legal representatives of the deceased employee shall have no right to seek appointment on compassionate ground, if compensation is awarded or the matter remains pending before the tribunal. If on the death of an employee of the Corporation his Legal representative at the time of compassionate appointment files an application for the same in the prescribed format then the application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be supplemented with an Affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- by the legal representative that no claim petition against the corporation has been filed before any competent court and also that no such claim shall be filed in the future and if in future even if any of the legal representatives files a claim petition before MACT then the employer/ Corporation shall have right to cancel my appointment without any notice and that I won’t file any case against such dismissal before any competent court.
6. According to the said Regulation, the death of an employee of the Corporation while travelling in a vehicle belonging to the Appellant-C
