Travancore Ltd. & Ors. Versus Anusree K.B.

Travancore Ltd. & Ors. Versus Anusree K.B. 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6958 OF 2022

Fertilizers and Chemicals

Travancore Ltd. & Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Anusree K.B. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Kerala at

Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 543 of 2021 by which the Division Bench

of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal preferred by the

appellants and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the

learned Single Judge directing the appellants to consider the case of the

respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground, the

original appellants – Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors.

have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-

1

2.1 That father of the respondent was employed as a loading helper

with the appellant No. 1 and expired while on duty on 19.04.1995. At the

time of death of the employee, the wife of the deceased employee was

serving and therefore, was not eligible for appointment on

compassionate ground considering the scheme for employment of

dependents of the employees dying in harness. After a period of 14

years, after the death of the deceased employee, the respondent

daughter of the deceased employee made a representation seeking

appointment on compassionate basis. That her application for

compassionate appointment was rejected on 12.02.2018 on the grounds

that her name was not in the list of dependents submitted by the

deceased employee and that the policy was to give employment to

widow or son or unmarried daughter of the deceased employee.

2.2 The rejection of the application for compassionate appointment

was the subject matter of writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

Vide order dated 13.11.2019, the learned Single Judge disposed of the

writ petition with the directions to the appellants to reconsider the

application of the respondent in accordance with Clause 1 of the

Scheme.

2.3 That on 12.12.2019, after reconsideration, the appellants again

rejected the application of the respondent for appointment on

2

compassionate ground on the grounds that it did not meet the primary

test of scheme that the deceased employee should be the “sole bread

winner of his family”, since his wife was gainfully employed with the

Kerala State Health Services Department at the time of his death and

also on the ground that 24 years have lapsed since the date of death of

the deceased employee.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated

13.11.2019, rejecting the application of the respondent for appointment

on compassionate ground, the respondent filed a writ petition before the

High Court.

2.5 By the judgment and order dated 22.01.2021, the learned Single

Judge allowed the said writ petition and directed the appellants to

reconsider the respondent’s claim strictly in terms of the observations

and directions passed in the order of the learned Single Judge dated

13.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 11234 of 2018 (earlier round of

litigation).

2.6 The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was

the subject matter of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court

by way of present writ appeal. By the impugned judgment and order, the

3

Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal,

which has given rise to the present appeal before this Court.

3. Shri Siddharth Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances

of the case and, more particularly, when the application for appointment

on compassionate ground was made by the respondent – daughter of

the deceased employee after a period of 14 years from the death of the

deceased employee, the Hon’ble High Court ought not to have directed

the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment

on compassionate ground. It is submitted that to reconsider the case of

the respondent now for appointment on compassionate ground after a

period of 24 years would be against the object and purpose of

appointment on compassionate ground namely to meet out the

difficulties created on account of sudden death of the sole bread earner.

Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Director

of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC

Online SC 704 and another decision of this Court in the case of N.C.

Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617.

3.1 Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions,

it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

4

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Sanjay Parikh,

learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4.1 It is submitted that at the relevant time when the deceased

employee died in the year 1995, the respondent was minor. It is

submitted that on attaining the age of majority, the respondent daughter

made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. It is

submitted that initially when the application of the respondent for

appointment on compassionate ground was rejected, the same was not

on the ground subsequently mentioned while passing the order dated

13.11.2019 namely delay. It is submitted that in the year 2018, even the

respondent was called for the interview, however, at that time, the

appointment was denied on the ground that in the dependent’s list, the

name of the respondent is not mentioned, which was found to be

factually incorrect. It is submitted that therefore, the respondent cannot

be denied the appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of

delay. Therefore, it is prayed not to interfere with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

6. The respondent’s father was serving as a loading helper. He died

in the year 1995. At the relevant time, the widow of the deceased

employee – mother of the respondent was serving in the Kerala State

5

Health Services Department and, therefore, as such was not eligible

and/or entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. After a period

of approximately 14 years, the respondent being a daughter of the

deceased employee submitted an application for appointment on

compassionate ground, which has been rejected by the appellants. At

this stage, it is required to be noted that in the meantime, the respondent

got married in the year 2013. It is also required to be noted that by the

time, the learned Single Judge passed the order, which has been

confirmed by the Division Bench, more than 24 years have passed after

the death of the deceased employee. In light of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, it is required to be considered whether still the

respondent shall be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground

on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995?

7. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law

laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the

deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the

recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in

Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704,

had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of

appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of

this Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617,

6

this Court has summarised the principle governing the grant of

appointment on compassionate ground as under:-

(i) that the compassionate appointment is an

exception to the general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to

compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of

the State has to be made on the basis of

the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution of India;

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be

made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the

State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility

criteria as per the policy;

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the

consideration of the application should be the basis

for consideration of claim for compassionate

appointment.

8. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on

the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government

vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as

mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However,

appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a

deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The

compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

8.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi

Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had an occasion to

consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate

7

ground and considered the decision of this Court in the case of Govind

Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in paras 21

and 26, it is observed and held as under:-

“21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind

Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been

considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before

we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that

the nature of compassionate appointment had been

considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State

of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana,

(1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles which have been laid

down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar

Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been

subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in

this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the

following extract: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh

Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138],

SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)

“2. … As a rule, appointments in the

public services should be made strictly on the

basis of open invitation of applications and

merit. No other mode of appointment nor any

other consideration is permissible. Neither the

Governments nor the public authorities are at

liberty to follow any other procedure or relax

the qualifications laid down by the rules for the

post. However, to this general rule which is to

be followed strictly in every case, there are

some exceptions carved out in the interests of

justice and to meet certain contingencies. One

such exception is in favour of the dependants

of an employee dying in harness and leaving

his family in penury and without any means of

livelihood. In such cases, out of pure

humanitarian consideration taking into

consideration the fact that unless some

source of livelihood is provided, the family

would not be able to make both ends meet, a

provision is made in the rules to provide

gainful employment to one of the dependants

of the deceased who may be eligible for such

8

employment. The whole object of granting

compassionate employment is thus to enable

the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The

object is not to give a member of such family a

post much less a post for post held by the

deceased. What is further, mere death of an

employee in harness does not entitle his

family to such source of livelihood. The

Government or the public authority concerned

has to examine the financial condition of the

family of the deceased, and it is only if it is

satisfied, that but for the provision of

employment, the family will not be able to

meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the

eligible member of the family. The posts in

Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in nonmanual and manual categories and hence

they alone can be offered on compassionate

grounds, the object being to relieve the family,

of the financial destitution and to help it get

over the emergency. The provision of

employment in such lowest posts by making

an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid

since it is not discriminatory. The favourable

treatment given to such dependant of the

deceased employee in such posts has a

rational nexus with the object sought to be

achieved viz. relief against destitution. No

other posts are expected or required to be

given by the public authorities for the purpose.

It must be remembered in this connection that

as against the destitute family of the deceased

there are millions of other families which are

equally, if not more destitute. The exception to

the rule made in favour of the family of the

deceased employee is in consideration of the

services rendered by him and the legitimate

expectations, and the change in the status

and affairs, of the family engendered by the

erstwhile employment which are suddenly

upturned.”

26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus

Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] has

adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate

9

grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable

the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial

crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be

evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the

scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind

Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S)

590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it

did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court

have been taken note of in that case.”

9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid

decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general

rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the

dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in

penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of

pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that

unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be

able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide

gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may

be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting

compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the

sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a

post held by the deceased.

9.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions

to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made

hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on

compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled

to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father,

10

who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of

the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the

appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made

now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the

object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground

is provided.

9.2 Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge as well

as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a serious error

in directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for

appointment on compassionate ground. The impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present

appeal succeeds. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single

Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court are hereby

quashed and set aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]

11