REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9049 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19871 of 2009)
Director General of Posts & Ors. … Appellant
Versus
K. Chandrashekar Rao … Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9050 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19872 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9051 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21910 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9053 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23211 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9054 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23212 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9055 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23213 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9056 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23214 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9057 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25550 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9058 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25551 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9059 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25553 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9060 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25559 of 2009)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9061 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.27784 of 2009)
J U D G M E N T
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted in all the SLPs.
2. By this common judgment we shall dispose of all the above mentioned
appeals which are directed against the judgments of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed on different dates vide which the Court,
while relying upon its judgment dated 23rd July, 2008 passed in Writ
Petition (C) No. 15820/2008, has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the
concerned government authority.
3. Thus, it is not necessary for us to notice the facts of each appeal
separately. Though, the judgments are of different dates, they are
primarily based upon the judgment of the High Court dated 23rdJuly, 2008.
For the purpose of convenience, we would be referring to the facts of
SLP(C) No.19871/2009.
FACTS:
4. The Department of Personnel and Training (for short ‘DoPT’), Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India, issued a
memorandum dated 9th October, 1998 containing the scheme for compassionate
appointment with an object to give a source of employment to the dependent
family members of the government servant dying in harness or one who has
retired on medical grounds. This scheme was declared on 9th October, 1998.
The scheme stipulated that the compassionate appointment could be made
upto a maximum of 5 per cent of the vacancies falling under Direct
Recruitment Quota in Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ post.
5. According to the appellants, the scheme of compassionate appointment
is always treated as an exception to the general rule of recruitment.
6. The father of the respondent was employed with the appellants in a
Group ‘D’ post. Unfortunately, the father of the respondent died on 19th
April, 2000.
7. On 16th May, 2001, the DoPT issued an office memorandum in view of
the policy of the Government of India that fresh recruitment should be
limited to one per cent of the total strength of civilian staff. The basis
for the same appeared to be that about three per cent of the staff retired
every year and thus, the reduction in manpower would reduce to 2% p.a. if
fresh recruitment is limited to 1% p.a. This would achieve a deduction of
ten percent in five years. It was decided that each Ministry and
Department would formulate an Annual Direct Recruitment Plan through the
mechanism of Screening Committee. Para 2.2 of this memorandum provided
that while preparing the Annual Recruitment Plan, the concerned Screening
Committee was to ensure that the direct recruitment did not exceed one per
cent of the total sanctioned strength of the Department. Since three per
cent of the staff retired every year, this would translate only to one-
third of the Direct Recruitment vacancies occurring in each year being
filled. Thus, the recruitment would be limited to filling one-third of the
vacancies of Direct Recruitment arising in the year, subject to a further
ceiling, that it does not exceed one percent of the total sanctioned
strength of the Department. In terms of Para 2.4 of the memorandum, it was
further stated that the vacancies so cleared by the Screening Committee
will be filled up by applying rules for reservation, handicapped,
compassionate quota therein.
8. However, the Special Circle Relaxation Committee, approved the names
of the candidates in the category of compassionate appointment on the basis
of 5 per cent of the existing vacancies occurring in the year 2000, 2001
and 2002. In face of the memorandum dated 16thMay, 2001, on or about 13th
March, 2002, 69 names were approved. On 4th July, 2002, the DoPT issued a
clarificatory memorandum that the five per cent quota for compassionate
appointment was to be calculated on the basis of direct recruitment
vacancies finally cleared by the Screening Committee and not on the basis
of the total vacancies occurring in the Department. The respondent, on 6th
August, 2002 was communicated the intimation with regard to the approval of
his name for appointment to Group ‘D’ post, which he joined on 22nd August,
2002.
9. It is the case of the appellants now that the mistake of appointment
in excess of the prescribed quota was detected and vide letter dated 12th
March, 2003 it was communicated that it was not possible to adjust the
candidates who were recommended in excess of the quota because the
recommendation for compassionate appointment was to be made on the basis of
five per cent of the approved vacancies cleared by the Screening Committee.
In furtherance to this, a decision was taken on 17th May, 2004 to select
only the most indigent persons against the available vacancies within the
prescribed ceiling of 5 per cent of the vacancies finally cleared by the
Screening Committee. In furtherance to the decision taken by the competent
authority, a meeting of the Special Circle Relaxation Committee was
convened and appointment of total 21 candidates on the basis of five per
cent approved vacancies cleared by the Screening Committee was approved.
The remaining 48 candidates were terminated/not permitted to
continue/dropped on 12th October, 2004. On 12th January, 2005, the
appellants noticed that the candidates, whose names had been cleared for
compassionate appointment on 13-15th March, 2002 or in the year 2002 were
still temporary servants. 48 names were in excess of the quota, therefore,
a notice of termination under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services
(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 was issued and as already noticed, the
services of the 48 persons, whose names were recommended in excess of the
quota, were terminated. These appointees, including the respondent in the
present appeal, challenged the said order of termination before the Central
Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘CAT’). The CAT granted an interim stay
during the pendency of the hearing of the application vide its order dated
8th February, 2005. The present appellants also point out that two other
applications, being OA No. 434/2005 and OA No. 761/2005 filed by similarly
situated employees, came to be dismissed vide orders of the CAT dated 20th
October, 2005 and 19th April, 2007 respectively.
10. The application filed by the present respondent came up before the
CAT for hearing on 31st October, 2007. While allowing the application of
the respondent, the CAT held that the appointment of the respondent-
applicant before it, was not liable to be terminated inter alia, but
primarily for the following reasons:-
“17. Therefore, it has been proved and established that the
instructions dated 16.05.2001 in so far as it relates to
compassionate appointment, frustrate the very object of the
scheme for compassionate appointment. The scheme for
compassionate appointment is a rehabilitation scheme.
Therefore, the subsequent instructions, the
application/operation of which frustrates the very object of the
scheme or make the scheme not practically applicable, cannot be
said to be valid instruction(s). Therefore, even if there had
been any instructions of 2001 to consider the cases for
compassionate appointment to the extent of 5% of the approved
vacancies cleared by the screening committee (which could not be
produced by the respondents before us), any appointment made
without following such instructions cannot be said to be
irregular appointment. More over, the administration should be
more particular while considering the cases of compassionate
appointment so that the persons appointed will not be terminated
for any irregularity in the appointment. In no case, the family
which has been provided with compassionate appointment to enable
the family to meet with the indigent conditions caused due to
the death of the employee would be put to distress again due to
the fault of the administration. We may, at the cost of
repetition, mention that (i) when the very instruction dated
16.05.2001 in so far as it relates to compassionate appointment,
has been proved to be frustrating the very object of the scheme
which is a rehabilitation scheme, even if any appointment is
made without following such instruction, cannot or does not make
the appointment irregular. (ii) The applicants who have been
given appointment against 2000 vacancies following the
instructions/scheme of 1998, their appointments do not, in any
way, come within the purview of the DOPT instructions of 2001.
Therefore, their appointments can in no way be terminated by
applying the instructions of 2001. (iii) All the applicants
who were considered and approved and were given compassionate
appointments in 2002 cannot be terminated after they have worked
for a considerable period. More particularly, when the scheme
is a rehabilitation scheme and the 2001 instructions in so far
it relates to compassionate appointments frustrates the very
object of the scheme and make the scheme practically
inapplicable as mentioned vide instructions cannot be said to be
valid. For the reasons mentioned above, it will not be out of
place to mention that in the case of Union of India and Others
vs. K.P. Tiwari [2003 SCC (L&S) 1233] Hon’ble Supreme Court
declined to interfere with the appointment made 5 years back and
said that:
“It is unnecessary in the present case to examine either
questions of law or fact arising in the matter. Suffice to
say that the respondent was appointment and has been in
service for more than five years. It would not be
appropriate to disturb that state of affairs by making any
other order resulting in uprooting the respondent from his
livelihood.”
Since the appropriate instructions dated 14.06.2006 have already
been issued to consider the cases for compassionate appointment
to the extent of 5% of total vacancies against the direct
recruitment quota, no further order is necessary to that effect.
Therefore, such appointment which is made without following the
said instructions cannot be terminated for the reasons mentioned
above.
18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we hold that
the respondents are not justified in issuing the impugned notice
of termination/order of notice to delete the names of the
applicants from the list of approved candidates. The applicants
are entitled to continue in service on the strength of the
appointment given to them. We, therefore, quash and set aside
the impugned orders/notices issued by the respondents in all the
applications. Interim order granted by this Tribunal stands
absolute.”
11. Being aggrieved from the judgment of the Tribunal, the
appellant filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 20655/2008 before the
High Court. The High Court by that time had already disposed of Writ
Petition (C) No. 15820 of 2008 filed by the Government Department entitled
Superintendent of Post Offices, Anantpur Division, Anantpur vs. R.S.
Madan Lal vide its judgment dated 23rd July, 2008, the subject matter in
SLP(C) No. 19872/2009 which is also listed along with the present bunch of
matters. While the High Court upheld the order of the CAT, it not only
accepted its reasoning but in addition thereto held as under:-
“We do not find any error in the above reasoning adopted by the
Tribunal. The respondent and others who were given appointments
against vacancies arising in 2000 ignoring the scheme-1998
cannot be removed from service, pursuant to the instructions
issued in 2001. Therefore, the candidates who were considered
and given compassionate appointment in 2002 cannot be removed
from service. At this stage, it is pat (sic-apt) to note that
the Government taking into consideration the difficulties being
faced by various Ministries in implementing the scheme for
compassionate appointment issued certain instructions in memo
dated, 14.6.2006. Para-3 of the said instructions reads thus:
“On a demand raised by Staff Side in the Standing Committee
of the National Council (JCM) for review of the
compassionate appointment policy, the matter has been
carefully examined and taking into account the fact that
the reduction in the number of vacancies for Group ‘C’ and
‘D’ posts (excluding technical pots) that have arisen in
the year. Total vacancies available for making direct
recruitment would be calculated by deducting the vacancies
to be filled on the basis of compassionate appointment form
the vacancies available for direct recruitment in terms of
existing orders on optimization.”
From the above, it is clear that the vacancies meant for direct
recruitment shall have to be calculated only after earmarking
the vacancies required for compassionate appointment. In words,
the direct recruitment vacancies shall have to be arrived at
only after deducting the vacancies required for compassionate
appointment under the scheme. The Tribunal while allowing the
O.As, has also taken into consideration, the aforementioned
instructions issued by the Government of India.
Admittedly, the notice of termination was issued on
24.11.2005, i.e., prior to the instructions of the Government of
India, dated 14.6.2006. Therefore, the authorities have to
reconsider the matter in the light of the instructions issued I
memo, dated 14.5.2006. The Tribunal on a careful consideration
of the relevant material on record has rightly come to the
conclusion that the persons appointment in the year 2002 cannot
be terminated from service. We find no error in the order of
the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in exercise
of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed, at the admission stage. No costs.”
12. As is clear from the above factual matrix of the case that the issue
revolves around the scope, interpretation and applicability of the office
memorandums issued by the DoPT and other concerned authorities from time to
time.
13. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government
of India had issued a circular on 9th October, 1998 declaring its policy in
the form of a Scheme for Compassionate appointment under the Central
Government. This Scheme provided that the policy shall be applicable to
the family members of a government servant who dies while in service
including death by suicide or is retired on medical grounds, but subject to
fulfilment of the conditions stated therein. It is not necessary for us
to go into other clauses of this Scheme inasmuch as there is no dispute to
other clauses except the clause relating to prescription of percentage in
relation to direct recruitment for the purposes of compassionate
appointment. It may be noticed that this Scheme of Compassionate
Appointment can be applied only to the following;
i) The post should be falling in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts,
ii) It should be in relation to direct recruitment as specified.
14. The Scheme provided for power of relaxation with the authorities in
regard to age etc. Clause 7 of the Scheme is the relevant clause with
which we are concerned. The same reads as under:-
“7. Determination/Availability of Vacancies
a) Appointment on compassionate grounds should be made only on
regular basis and that too only if regular vacancies meant for
that purpose are available.
b) Compassionate appointments can be made upto a maximum of 5% of
vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group
‘C’ or ‘D’ post. The appointing authority may hold back upto
5% of vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by
direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission or
otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on
compassionate grounds. A person selected for appointment on
compassionate grounds should be adjusted in the recruitment
roster against the appropriate category viz. SC/ST/OBC/General
depending upon the category to which he belongs. For example,
if he belongs to SC category he will be adjusted against the SC
reservation point, if he is ST/OBC he will be adjusted against
ST/OBC point and if he belongs to General category he will be
adjusted against the vacancy point meant for General category.
c) While the ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment
against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by making
appointment of dependent family member of Government servant on
casual/daily wage/ad-hoc/contract basis against regular
vacancies, there is no bar to considering him for such
appointment if he is eligible as per the normal rules/orders
governing such appointments.
d) The ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies for making
compassionate appointment should not be exceeded by (sic) any
other vacancy e.g. sports quota vacancy.
e) Employment under the scheme is not confined to the
Ministry/Department/Office in which deceased/medically retired
Government servant had been working. Such an appointment can
be given anywhere under the Government of India depending upon
availability of a suitable vacancy meant for the purpose of
compassionate appointment.
f) If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular
office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for
compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative
Ministry/Department/Office to take up the matter with other
Ministries/ Departments/ Offices of the Government of India to
provide at any early date appointment on compassionate grounds
to those in the waiting list.”
15. Before, we proceed to analyse the above clause as well as examine its
impact in view of the amended OMs of the Government of India, we must
notice that under clause 16(c) of this Scheme, it was specifically noticed
that Scheme of Compassionate Appointment was conceived by the Government of
India as far back as 1958. Since then, a number of welfare schemes have
been introduced by the Government which has made a significant difference
in the financial position of the families of the government servants dying
in harness/retired on medical grounds.
16. Clause 16(d) further provides that a compassionate appointment should
not be denied or delayed merely on the ground that there is re-organisation
in the office of the Ministry. The post should be made available to the
person concerned if there is a vacancy meant for compassionate appointment
and he or she is found eligible and suitable under the Scheme. Not only
this, under clause 16(f), a compassionate appointment will have precedence
on absorption of surplus employees and reorganisation of daily wage/casual
worker with or without temporary status.
17. Reverting to clause 7 of the Scheme, it is stipulated under the
Scheme that appointment on compassionate grounds should be made only on
regular basis and that too if regular vacancies meant for that purpose are
available. The compassionate appointments can be made upto a maximum of 5%
of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any group ‘C’ or ‘D’
post. The appointing authority may hold back upto 5% of the vacancies in
the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct recruitment through Staff
Selection Commission or otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by
appointment on compassionate grounds.
18. Clause 7(f) needs to be emphasised as it contemplates that even if
sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to
accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment,
it is open to the administrative Ministry/Department/Office to take up the
matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India
to provide at an early date appointment on compassionate grounds to those
in the waiting list.
19. The above clauses clearly show that the Scheme of 1998 for
compassionate appointment is a welfare activity carried out by the
Government of India. It is a benevolent act on the part of the State.
Keeping in view the dire economic and social crisis to which the family of
a deceased government employee in Class ‘C’ or ‘D’ is exposed, the
government through this Scheme offers a helping hand. This is a voluntary
act of generosity on the part of the State. The generosity once extended
in the form of exercise of a subordinate legislative power by formulating
the said Scheme, will have the force of law. It is enforceable to its
limited extent and within its prescribed parameters. The purpose of the
1998 Scheme was to provide employment and preferably as part of the regular
cadre subject to availability of vacancies. Then the Central Government
issued Office Memorandum dated 16th May, 2001. This Memorandum did not
refer to the circular of 1998 as such, however, the essence of this
memorandum was that while presenting the Budget for the year 2001-2002, the
Finance Minister stated that “all requirements of recruitment will be
scrutinized to ensure that fresh recruitment is limited to 1 per cent of
total civil staff strength. As about 3 per cent of the staff retire every
year, this will reduce the manpower by 2 per cent per annum achieving a
deduction of 10 per cent in five years as announced by the Prime Minister.”
Under clause 2.2 of this Memorandum, it was further stated that while
preparing the Annual Recruitment Plans, the concerned screening committees
would ensure that direct recruitment does not in any case exceed 1 per cent
of the sanctioned strength of the department and accordingly direct
recruitment would be limited to 1/3rd of the direct recruitment vacancies
arising in the year subject to further restriction that this will not
exceed 1 per cent of the total sanctioned strength of the department.
20. In furtherance to this Memorandum, the Government of India, DoPT
issued a clarification on the guidelines for compassionate appointment to
Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts on 4th July, 2002. It clarified that 5 per cent
quota for compassionate appointment is to be worked out with reference to
DR vacancies in each recruitment year finally approved for filling up by
the Screening Committee under the optimisation policy of the Government
contained in Office Memorandum dated 16th May, 2001. In other words, this
Memorandum merely reiterated the applicability of the Office Memorandum
dated 16th May, 2001.
21. Finally on 14th June, 2006, ‘Scheme for Compassionate Appointment
under the Central Government Determination of Vacancies’ was clarified.
In this Office Memorandum, an attempt was made to clarify the optimisation
of direct recruitment to civilian posts as contained in the Office
Memorandum dated 16th May, 2001 to say that the recruitment does not exceed
1% of the total sanctioned strength of the department. It noticed that
there had been a continuous reduction in the number of vacancies for direct
recruitment, thus, very few vacancies or, in fact, no vacancies were
available for compassionate appointment. In light of this, the earlier
instructions including the instructions dated 9th October, 1998 stood
modified to the extent mentioned therein.
22. From the above Scheme and Office Memorandum, it is clear that where
on the one hand, the State had formulated a welfare scheme for
compassionate appointments, there on the other, because of limitations of
its financial resources it decided to take economic measures by reducing
the extent of appointment by direct recruitment from the financial year
2001-2002. Both these matters falling in the domain of the Government and
being matters of policy, the Court is hardly called upon to comment upon
either of them. These are the acts which fall in the domain of the State
and do not call for any judicial interference. All that we propose to hold
is that State has to abide by the Scheme it has floated for compassionate
appointment. The 1998 Scheme floated by the Government should receive a
liberal construction and application as it is stated to be a social welfare
scheme and largely tilted in favour of the members of the family of the
deceased employee. The purpose appears to be to provide them with
recruitment on a regular basis rather than circumvent the same by adopting
any other measure. That is the reason why the Government specifically
states in its Scheme that efforts should be made to appoint the members of
a distressed family to the post provided he/she satisfies the other
parameters stated in the Scheme.
23. The appellant was admittedly appointed to the post, in furtherance to
the 1998 Scheme, in the year 2002 (while other appellants were appointed
during the period of 2001-2003). The instructions which specifically
dealt with the compassionate appointments were issued by office memorandum
dated 4th July, 2002. Neither the Memorandum dated 16th May, 2001 nor
Memorandum dated 4th July, 2002 stated that the restrictions sought to be
imposed were applicable retrospectively or even retroactively. The rights
of these persons had been settled, the respondent and others had been
appointed to the posts and they had already worked in their respective
posts before the notice of termination were issued to them at the end of
year 2004. No data or material has been placed by the government before
us even to support the contention that under the effect of the instructions
of the year 1998, these persons were appointed in excess of the posts
provided under the Scheme. Both these office memorandums were expected to
operate prospectively and thus the rights which had been settled could not
be re-settled. The stand of the appellant that it was a discrepancy or
an error does not stand to any reason and must be rejected. It is also
undisputed before us that the appointments of the respondent and others
were made on the basis of the vacancies existing against the year 2000 when
the instructions of 1998 were in operation, free of any restriction.
24. In the meanwhile and as already noticed, another office memorandum
came to be issued on 14th June, 2006 amending the restrictions placed by
the office memorandum dated 16th May, 2001. The memorandum of 14th June,
2006 in fact requires as to how the vacancies available for making direct
recruitment are to be calculated. It is not even the case of the
appellants before us that in face of the memorandums, this exercise in
terms of this memorandum was ever undertaken by the appellants. It will
be a contradictory stand, if on the one hand, the appellants are permitted
to treat office memorandums including office memorandum dated 16th May,
2001 as retrospective while on the other they treat office memorandum dated
14th June, 2006 as prospectively. The High Court in the operative part
of its judgment has clearly observed that the authorities have to
reconsider the matter in the light of instructions issued in the memorandum
dated 14th June, 2006. We are unable to find any error of jurisdiction or
otherwise in the said finding returned by the High Court.
25. Despite the fact that the judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) has been upheld by the High Court, we
are unable to contribute and sustain the view taken by the Tribunal that
the Memorandum dated 16th May, 2001 frustrated the very object of the
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment and on that ground alone, it was
liable to be declared invalid. As already noticed, both the matters are
policy matters of the State and for valid and proper reasons, without
infringing the spirit of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State
can frame its policy, where it is for economic reasons, least such decision
would be open to judicial review to that extent. In the present case,
there is some ambiguity created by issuance of office memorandums dated
16th May, 2001 and 14th June, 2006 and the enforcement of the former vide
office memorandum dated 4th July, 2002 in relation to the implementation of
Compassionate Appointment Scheme of 1998. Thus, it is not only desirable
but necessary that the competent authority should issue comprehensive
guidelines squarely covering the issue, but they cannot tamper with the
existing rights of the appointees.
26. To contend that the existing status should not be disturbed by this
Court, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent heavily relied upon
the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Others v. K.P. Tiwari
[(2003) 9 SCC 129], where the Court noticed in para 4 of the judgment that
“it is unnecessary in this case to examine either questions of law or fact
arising in the matter. Suffice to say that the respondent has been
appointed now and has been in service for more than five years. We do not
think, it would be appropriate to disturb that state of affairs by making
any other order resulting in uprooting the respondent from his livelihood”.
27. As is evident from this judgment, no law has been stated by the
Court, however it was stated that in the facts of that case, it was not
appropriate to disturb the appointment at that stage. We may usefully
refer to another judgment of this Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr.
v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others etc. etc. [(2000) 6 SCC 493],
where this Court held as under:-
“19. Mr Bhasme further contended that family members of a large
number of the employees have already availed of the Family Benefit
Scheme and as such it would be taken to be otherwise more beneficial
to the employee concerned. We are not called upon to assess the
situation but the fact remains that having due regard to the
constitutional philosophy to decry a compassionate employment
opportunity would neither be fair nor reasonable. The concept of
social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system
or the legal justice and as Roscoe Pound pointed out the greatest
virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus it
would be otherwise an obligation for the law courts also to apply
the law depending upon the situation since the law is made for the
society and whatever is beneficial for the society, the endeavour of
the law court would be to administer justice having due regard in
that direction.”
28. In the above case, the Court has placed emphasis upon the concept of
socio-economic justice and granted relief to the appellant and, in
addition, directed employment of one of the family members.
29. In view of the above settled position of law and the fact that the
memorandums could not be given retrospective effect, we do not consider it
appropriate to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The spirit
of the Scheme was to provide relief to the family members of the deceased
persons and thus on the yardstick of social justice, such relief cannot be
withdrawn on the ground of some alleged discrepancy which has not been
supported by any data, is unreasonable and therefore, even unsustainable.
The appellants must state appropriate reasons and provide the expected data
on record if they expect the Court to come to a different conclusion. As
already noticed, the appellants have miserably failed to place any such
data on the basis of the Memorandum dated 14th June, 2006.
30. For the reasons afore-stated, we dismiss all these appeals and
further issue the following directions;
A) The appointments of the respondents will not be interfered with by
the appellants on the strength of the memorandum dated 4th July, 2002.
B) The Office Memorandum dated 16th May, 2001, 14th June, 2006 and 4th
July, 2002 have in relation to the 1998 Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment caused some confusion on the one hand and while on the
other they have prejudicially affected the rights of large number of
heirs of the employees who died in harness. Thus, we direct the
appellants to issue comprehensive, certain and unambiguous directions
which shall put an end to such unnecessary controversies.
31. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.
……...….…………......................J.
(Swatanter Kumar)
.…………..................................J.
(Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)
New Delhi,
December 13, 2012
