Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Brijesh Kumar & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9903 of 2024(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (C) NO.10546 OF 2019)
Decided on : 28-08-2024
(A) Service Law – Termination – Reversal by High Court – High Court concurrently held that appointment of the respondent was on compassionate basis and as such he was a permanent employee whose services could not have been terminated on account of any misconduct without holding a disciplinary inquiry – Any appointment made on compassionate basis is in nature of a permanent appointment and is not liable to be treated as temporary or contractual – However, respondent was appointed as a contract conductor on preferential basis being son of deceased employee – He was not appointed on compassionate basis – There is no reference of any compassionate appointment in any document – Mere fact that respondent was appointed on contract basis pursuant to application for compassionate appointment would not make his appointment to be one under Dying in Harness Rules – Respondent had accepted offer of contractual employment with his open eyes and had even signed agreement to that effect – His appointment was simply on contract basis and cannot be treated as permanent. (Paras 7, 12, 15, 16 and 17)
(B) Service Law – Termination – Reversal by High Court – Services of respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him – Termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to respondent – No show-cause notice appears to have been issued to respondent – Termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following Principles of Natural Justice – Order terminating services of respondent is bad in law and cannot be sustained – It has rightly been set aside – Appointment of respondent is a contractual appointment entitling him to continue as such in service and to claim regularization in accordance with law – Judgments and orders of High Court set aside to the extent they hold appointment to be on compassionate basis under Dying in Harness Rules and that of a permanent nature but quashing of termination order maintained. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Under challenge in this appeal by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is order dated 12.09.2018 passed by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Letters Patent Appeal arising from a writ petition filed by the respondent wherein Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 12.01.2018 allowed writ petition of respondent after setting aside order dated 30.01.2016 terminating services of respondent passed by Assistant Regional Manager, Mathura, UPSRTC.
Findings of Court:
Single Judge and Division Bench manifestly erred in law in holding that respondent was appointed under Dying in Harness Rules. High Court, erroneously on complete misreading of material on record, held that appointment of respondent to be on compassionate basis and that he is liable to be treated as a permanent employee. High Court has erred factually in treating appointment of respondent under the Dying in Harness Rules, though, it is not so.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Under challenge in this appeal by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation1 In short ‘UPSRTC’] is the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Letters Patent Appeal arising from a writ petition filed by the respondent wherein the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 12.01.2018 allowed the writ petition of the respondent after setting aside the order dated 30.01.2016 terminating the services of the respondent passed by the Assistant Regional Manager, Mathura, UPSRTC.
3. The father of the respondent Bal Krishna was a regular conductor working with the appellant (UPSRTC) who died on 18.10.2003 while in service. At that time, the respondent was a minor. His mother moved an application for his compassionate appointment but in vain. The respondent attained the age of majority i.e. 18 years on 10.07.2008. He acquired the educational qualification of high school and intermediate. His mother, therefore, again moved an application seeking compassionate appointment for him under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 19742[Hereinafter referred to as ‘Dying in Harness Rules’].
4. There was no response to the above applications filed by the mother of the respondent. However, subsequently vide letter dated 19.10.2012, the appellant (UPSRTC) informed the respondent that in connection with his application for compassionate appointment, the corporation has decided to appoint him on preferential basis as a contract conductor. Accordingly, he was requested to report to the office and to deposit a security amount of Rs.10,000/-. It appears that in pursuance thereof the respondent submitted the security deposit and entered into an agreement with the appellant (UPSRTC) on 12.12.2012 to function as a contract conductor. The respondent, thus, joined as contract conductor.
5. During his service as contract conductor, he was found guilty of carrying three passengers without ticket on two occasions and on one occasion was found carrying 500 kg of extra luggage without booking. His services were thus terminated on 30.01.2016 on the ground of misconduct.
6. The respondent challenged the order dated 30.01.2016 terminating his services alleging that he was appointed on compassionate basis and, therefore, was a permanent employee whose services could not have been determined without holding a disciplinary inquiry.
7. The writ petition challenging the termination order was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 12.01.2018 and the same was upheld by the Division bench by the order impugned herein dated 12.09.2018. The High Court concurrently held that the appointment of the respondent was on compassionate basis and as such he was a permanent employee whose services could not have been terminated on account of any misconduct without holding a disciplinary inquiry.
8. In the above background, the appellant (UPSRTC) has come up in the present appeal.
9. Heard Smt. Garima Prashad, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Shri Sudhir Kumar Saxena, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
10. The submission of Smt. Garima Prashad, learned senior counsel for the appellant (UPSRTC), is that the respondent was never appointed on compassionate basis under the Dying in Harness Rules. His appointment was on contractual basis, independent of the Dying in Harness Rules. Since his appointment was on contractual basis, his services have rightly been determined on the alleged misconduct.
11. Shri Sudhir Kumar Saxena, learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand defended the orders of the High Court contending that the compassionate appointments are always of permanent nature and the services of such employees cannot be terminated without holding a disciplinary inquiry. Therefore, the High Court has not committed any error of law in setting aside the termination order and hold
Compassionate appointments must comply strictly with applicable rules, and delays in application negate claims for such appointments, emphasizing they are exceptions, not rights.
Compassionate appointments must comply with specific norms and cannot be claimed as a right, with eligibility based on financial hardship.
The nature of appointment of a compassionate appointee is permanent and not temporary, as per statutory rules and previous court decisions.
Compassionate appointments cannot be deemed temporary; they are considered permanent under statutory rules. Termination based on incorrect application of rules is quashed.
Service matter - Dying-in-Harness - Compassionate ground - Appointment - The appointment on compassionate ground is not a temporary appointment but same has to be treated as permanent appointment.
(1) Compassionate appointment – Policy of compassionate appointment is not a concession, largesse or mercy shown to hapless dependents of a deceased employee, but a structured response of State to en....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
