Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1989
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Kumud Devi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1693 of 2019
Decided On : 15-02-2019
Shantanu Kumar, Adv., Gopal Singh, Adv., Manish Kumar, Adv.
Regularization of compassionate appointment and entitlement to continuity of service rights and consequential benefits.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Employment Dispute - The court directed the reinstatement of the appellant in service with continuity of service rights and consequential benefits, but without salary and emoluments for the period she had not worked.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was given employment in a private school on compassionate grounds after her husband's death. Her appointment was later questioned due to inconsistency with relevant policy, and her services were discontinued in 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's services could be regularized considering the circumstances of her appointment and directed her reinstatement with continuity of service rights and consequential benefits, but without salary and emoluments for the period she had not worked.
Issues: Questioning of appellant's appointment on compassionate grounds and discontinuation of her services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the circumstances of the appellant's appointment and her husband's regular service in the school, leading to the decision to reinstate her with continuity of service rights and consequential benefits.
Final Decision: The appellant was allowed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service rights and consequential benefits, but without salary and emoluments for the period she had not worked.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The husband of the appellant was working in Ramdhan Mulko Girls High School Pakribarawan, Nawada. While in service, he died on 04.05.1990. Soon therafter, on compassionate grounds, the appellant was given employment in the very same school as a Clerk. At the relevant time, the school was a private school and was later taken over by the State which is presently managing the affairs of the school.
3. On the ground that the employment of the appellant was not consistent with the relevant policy, in terms of which no private institution was allowed to make any appointment after 04.02.1989 without the concurrence of the authorities, her appointment was put in question.
4. In effect, even after the State Government had taken over the control of the affairs of the School, the appellant continued to work in the school till 2013, whereafter her services were discontinued.
5. Considering the fact situation, where the husband of the appellant was in regular service in the school and upon death of her husband she was granted appointment on compassionate basis, we see no reason why her services could not be regularized. We, therefore, direct:
a) The appellant shall be reinstated in service within one month from today;
b) Upon reinstatement, the appellant shall be entitled to the continuity of service right from her initial appointment on 21.07.1991 and shall, on that count, be entitled to all consequential benefits;
c) The appellant shall however not be entitled to salary and emoluments for the period for which she had not worked in the school but such period shall be reckoned for the purposes mentioned hereinabove;
d) In case, the appellant is not reinstated within the period stipulated, she will be entitled to regular salary and emoluments as are payable to any other employee in similarly situated positions.
6. The appellant shall also be entitled to all the benefits for her past service from 21.07.1991 till her services were disengaged and the emoluments at the level at which other similarly situated employees are entitled, be made over to her within one month from today.
7. With these observations, this appeal stands allowed.
