? REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6224 OF 2008
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
SHASHANK GOSWAMI & ANR. Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and
order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.28535 of 2006 directing the appellants herein
to reconsider application of respondent no.1 on compassionate grounds.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that one
Anand Kishore Gautam working as Senior Accountant in the office of the
Accountant General, Allahabad died on 19.3.2001 in harness, leaving
behind two sons aged about 20 and 19 years and a daughter, aged about
17 years and Smt. Rashmi Gautam, ?his widow.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for appointment on
compassionate grounds, which came to be rejected by the appellants on
28.1.2004 in view of the prevailing scheme for appointments on
compassionate grounds. Under the scheme, vacancies could be filled up
on compassionate grounds only upto 5% of the cadre strength falling
under direct recruitment quota during a year in Group ‘C ' and 'D '
posts.
The scheme further lays down that the total income of the family
from all sources including terminal benefits after death, excluding
G.P.F., should be taken into consideration. So far as the post of
Group 'C' is concerned, the scheme provides that in case the family
gets more than Rs.3 lakhs, the dependent of the deceased would not be
eligible for employment on compassionate ground.
4. Respondent No.1 could not be offered appointment on the ground
that excluding G.P.F. amount, his family had received a sum of
Rs.4,40,908/- in addition to family pension of Rs.3,100/- per month
granted to Mrs. Rashmi Gautam. She was entitled to get the said family
pension at least for seven years and thereafter, the family pension
would be Rs.1,860/- per month plus ?other reliefs admissible on pension
.
5. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 28.1.2004
rejecting his claim, before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
vide Original Application No. 728 of 2004, wherein the Tribunal by
judgment and order dated 7.12.2005 quashed the order dated 28.1.2004
and directed the appellants herein to reconsider the case of
respondent No.1.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred
CMWP No.28535 of 2006 before the High Court which has been dismissed
vide impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.
7. We have heard Mr. S.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants.
In spite of notice, the respondents did not enter appearance.
The appeal is pending for the last four years before this Court.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has
submitted that the appellants had to consider the applications for
employment on compassionate grounds only within the parameters and
terms and conditions incorporated in the scheme laid down for that
purpose. The scheme makes a person ineligible for the post in Group
'C', in case, on the ?death of the incumbent on the post, the family
gets retiral benefits/terminal benefits exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs.
9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that
the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the
premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee.
Strictly, such a 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. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. As a rule public service appointment
should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of
applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not
another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid
requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the
employee while in service leaving his family without any means of
livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get
over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family.
Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group
of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in
accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions
taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the
deceased.
10. This Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation
of India & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 289 while dealing with a similar issue
i.e. whether payment of terminal/retiral benefits to the family can be
taken into consideration, held as under:
“In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental
authorities ….. to take into consideration the amount which
was being paid as family pension to the widow of the
deceased ….. and other amounts paid on account of terminal
benefits under the Rules. . ….. Therefore, compassionate
appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member
of the family received the amount admissible under the
Rules.”
11. This Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. V. Ashwini Kumar
Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265, placing reliance upon the earlier judgment
in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. V. Kunti Tiwari & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC
271, held that compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance
with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions taking into
consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.
Whereas the scheme provides that in case the family of the deceased
gets the retrial/ terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling,
the dependant of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for
compassionate appointment.
12. In Mumtaz YunusMulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
(2008) 11 SCC 384, this Court examined the scope of employment on
compassionate ground in a similar scheme making the dependant of an
employee ineligible for the post in case the family receives terminal/
retiral benefits above the sealing limit and held that the judgment in
Govind Prakash (supra) had been decided without considering earlier
judgments which were binding on the Bench. The Court further held
that that the appointment has to be made considering the terms of the
scheme and in case the scheme lays down a criterion that if the family
of the deceased employee gets a particular amount as retiral/terminal
benefits, dependent of the deceased employee would not be eligible
for employment on compassionate grounds.
13. In the instant case, office of the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, New Delhi issued a Circular dated 19.2.2003
explaining the scope of such appointments. Relevant part of the same
reads as under:
“With a view to bring uniformity in our offices regarding
parameters for compassionate appointment of a family member
in the case of death of a government servant in harness, it
has been decided that the total income of the family from
all sources including terminal benefits after death,
excluding G.P.F., should be taken into account. If the
resultant computation works out to a figure less than the
parameters given below such cases can be considered for
compassionate appointment subject to fulfilment of all
other conditions. The limits are given below:
Group ‘B’ Rs. Five lakhs
Group ‘C’ Rs. Three lakhs
Group ‘D’ Rs. Two lakhs.”
…….
14. The case of the respondent was rejected by the appellants in
view of the fact that the family of the deceased Anand Kishore Gautam
had been given the following terminal benefit excluding the G.P.F.
1. DCRG Rs.2,48,248.00
2. Leave Encashment Rs.88,660.00
3. CGEIS Rs.44,000.00
4. DLIS Rs.60,000.00
Total: Rs.4,40,908.00
In addition to above, family pension @ 3100/- per month has been
authorised to Smt. Rashmi Gautam for a period of 7 years and
thereafter @ 1860/- per month plus admissible relief on pension.
15. In view of the fact that, in the instant case the retiral/
terminal benefits have been received by the family exceeding Rs.3
lakhs, respondent No.1 is not eligible to be considered for the Group
'C' post.
16. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned judgments/orders stand set aside.
..……………………….J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
.………………………..J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
New Delhi,
May 23, 2012
