Important point
Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments.

Headnote:Service Law—Appointment on compassionate ground—Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 (as amended by Amendment Rules, 1998—Respondent held entitled to appointment on compassionate ground—Father of respondent, a government servant, died on 21.12.1977 when respondent was two months old—On attaining majority respondent moved application on 2.12.1996 seeking appointment which was rejected on ground that application had not been filed within one year of attaining majority—Another application moved on 29.11.1999 after Rules were amended was also rejected on ground that no application was pending on date when Amendment Rules came into force—Administrative Tribunal allowed petition and directed appellant to consider case of respondent for appointment on compassionate ground without regard to period of limitation—High Court upheld the decision—Appeal—Unless application was pending at the time of commencement of Amendment Rules, provision had no application—There was no scope for introducing a concept of condonation of delay—Appointment on compassionate ground could not be claimed as a matter of right—Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration to make appointments on compassionate grounds when regulations framed in respect thereof did not cover such appointment—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
Held : A bare reading of the second proviso makes the position that unless the application is pending at the time of commencement of the Amendment Rules, the same can have no application. If the second proviso has no application, then the question of any subsequent application being considered does not arise. The provision is clear and unambiguous. That being so, there was no scope for introducing a concept of condonation of delay as has been done by the Tribunal and the High Court. If the view is accepted it would mean that a belated application will be deemed to have been done within time. That would be in effect introducing a deeming provision by interpretative process which is not permissible. Now comes the question of the object of compassionate appointment. As was observed in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr. (AIR 1996 SC 2445), it need not be pointed out that the claim of person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependant on the deceased-employee. Strictly this 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. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in harness Scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased-employee. In Rani Devi’s case (supra) it was held that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employee including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and Anr. (1994(2) SCC 718), it was pointed out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments. (Paras 8 to 10)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—The appellant-State and its functionaries call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the respondent was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. By the impugned judgment the view expressed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) about such entitlement of the respondent was upheld.

2. Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief:

Respondent’s father Ramachandra Narayan Bhat who was a government servant died on 21.12.1977. The respondent was born on 20.10.1977 and was hardly two months old at the time when his father expired. He attained majority on 20.10.1995. He submitted an application on 2.12.1996 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds purportedly under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 (in short the ‘Rules’). The said application on 11/13.11.1997 was rejected on the ground that the application had not been filed within time i.e. within one year of attaining majority. Another application was filed on 22.4.1998 which was not entertained. Certain amendments were made to the Rules by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998 (in short ‘Amendment Rules’) which were operative with effect from 1.4.1999. Respondent filed another application on 29.11.1999. The same was rejected on 9.6.2000 by stating that no application was pending on the date when Amendment Rules came into force and, therefore, the Rules as amended had no application to his case. The respondent approached the Tribunal questioning the order of rejection. By order dated 19.9.2001 Tribunal allowed the petition and directed the present appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds without regard to any period of limitation referred to in the letter dated 9.6.2000.

3. The appellants questioned correctness of Tribunal’s decision before the High Court. As noted above, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal and the High Court failed to notice the relevant provisions and proceeded on factually and legally erroneous premises. Rule 5 of the Rules as it originally stood reads as follows:

“Every dependant of a deceased Government servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government Servant was working.

Provided that in the case of a minor, application shall be made within a period of one year after attaining majority.”

5. The said Rule was amended by the Amendment Rules w.e.f. 1.4.1999 by substituting the existing proviso in the following manner:

“Provided that in the case of a minor, he must have make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and he must have attained the age of eighteen years on the date of making the application.

Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependant of a deceased Government Servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for consideration on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998.”

6. It is pointed out that the respondent had filed first application on 2.12.1996 which was rejected on 11/13.11.1997. He filed another application on 22.4.1998 which was also not entertained. The last application was filed on 29.11.1999, obviously, after the Amendment Rules came into force. The Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on the basis as if the application was pending when the amendment came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1999, the High Court rightly noted that the effect of the amended first

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1112

Important pointCourts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments.

Cases Referred (8)

Important point
Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments.