Compassionate appointments are not a source of recruitment and they are made to provide succour to the family of an employee who dies in harness. In the State of Bihar compassionate appointments are governed by instructions issued by the Government. Some of the Appellants were recommended for appointment to Class III posts on a regular basis by the District Compassionate Committee. However, they were appointed as Prakhand Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/ Nagar Shikshaks, etc. on a fixed pay. The Appellants could not have been appointed on a fixed pay and they are entitled for appointment to either on Class III or Class IV posts on regular basis or payment of regular pay scale in the posts of as Prakhand Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, etc. in which they are working at present. Some of the Appellants who were recommended for appointment to Class III posts but were appointed as Prakhand Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, etc. on fixed pay are similarly situated to Vishwanath Pandey and they are entitled to be appointed on a regular pay scale. The other Appellants who were appointed after 01.07.2006 are not entitled to the relief granted to those who were recommended for appointment to Class III or Class IV posts prior to that date. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in State of Bihar and Others v. Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar, reported in (2010) 3 PLJR 294 (FB), held that the dependents of deceased Government employees do not have a legal right to be appointed in Government posts. Their appointments on compassionate grounds shall be in accordance with Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) which came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2006. Rule 10 of the said Rules provides for employment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of teaching/ non-teaching employees against available vacancies of Panchayat Teachers/Block Teachers/Prakhand Teachers, etc. Such appointments can be made only on a fixed pay by the committee constituted under the Rules. The Appellants who have not been recommended for appointment to Class III or Class IV posts prior to 01.07.2006 are not covered by Vishwanath Pandey’s case (supra). On the other hand, they are squarely covered by the judgment of Full Bench of the Patna High Court. They are not similarly situated to those who were recommended for appointment to Class III posts prior to 01.07.2006. The Appellants, who were appointed after 01.07.2006, the date on which the Rules came into force, are not entitled to claim appointment on regular pay scales. It is relevant to note that the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Patna was challenged before this Court. The said SLP was withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioners therein to approach the Government for suitable relief. For the foregoing reasons, we direct that the Appellants who were recommended for appointment to Class III or Class IV posts prior to 01.07.2006 will either be appointed on Class III or Class IV posts on regular basis or will be entitled for continuance as Teachers on a regular pay scale. The other Appellants who were appointed after 01.07.2006 will not be entitled for the relief of regular pay scales. However, we grant them liberty to approach the State Government for suitable relief in terms of the order passed in SLP (C) No.29655 of 2010.

                                                         [pic]Non-Reportable


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CIVIL APPEAL Nos.    4776-4777 of 2017
              (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.31158-31159 of 2013)

MUKESH & ANR.
                                                           .... Appellant(s)
      Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
                                                             ….Respondent(s)
                                    With
                     CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4778-4779 of 2017
              (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.34174-34175 of 2013)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4780 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35494 of 2013)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4781 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35496 of 2013)

                     CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4782-4784 of 2017
              (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35818-35820 of 2013)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4785 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35938 of 2013)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4786 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.36908 of 2013)

                     CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4787-4792 of 2017
              (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37292-37297 of 2013)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4793 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.37533 of 2013)

                     CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4794-4797 of 2017
              (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37868-37871 of 2013)

                     CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4798-4800 of 2017
              (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37983-37985 of 2013)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4801 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.39421 of 2013)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4802 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.39424 of 2013)

                     CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4803-4806 of 2017
                (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.601-604 of 2014)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4807 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.3605 of 2014)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4808 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7357 of 2014)

                       CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4809 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12929 of 2014)

                        CIVIL APPEAL Nos 4812 of 2017
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21393 of 2014)



                               J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
      Leave granted.
      The Appellants are  children  of  Government  employees  who  died  in
harness.   They applied for appointment to Class  III  Government  posts  on
the  basis  of  instructions  governing  compassionate   appointments.   The
competent authority recommended the appointment of some  of  the  Appellants
in Class III posts.  However, they were appointed on fixed pay  as  Prakhand
Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, etc. The Writ Petitions  filed
by them were allowed and the Respondents were directed to  appoint  them  in
Class III or Class IV posts or to pay them regular pay scales  in  the  post
of Assistant Teacher.   The Appeals filed by the Government challenging  the
said judgment in the writ applications were  allowed.   The  Appellants  who
have challenged the judgment of the Division Bench  of  the  High  Court  in
these Appeals submitted that they are covered by a judgment  of  this  Court
in Vishwanath Pandey v. State of Bihar and Others,  reported  in  (2013)  10
SCC 545.  Vishwanath Pandey who was similarly  situated  to  the  Appellants
succeeded in the Writ Petition filed by him for  appointment  on  a  regular
pay scale.  However, the said judgment was reversed by a Division Bench.  By
the aforementioned judgment, the  Appeal  filed  by  Vishwanath  Pandey  was
allowed by this Court holding thus:-

“8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  and  scrutinised  the
records. It is not in dispute that even though  the  District  Compassionate
Committee had made recommendations on 29-11-2005 that the appellant  may  be
appointed on a Class III post, he was not given appointment because  of  the
ban imposed by the State Government. It is also not in  dispute  that  after
lifting of the ban, the District  Compassionate  Committee  recommended  the
appellant's appointment as  teacher  on  compassionate  ground  and  he  was
appointed  against  the  vacant  post  by  the  District  Superintendent  of
Education, Buxar. That order was  neither  rescinded  nor  modified  by  the
competent authority on the premise that after coming into force of the  2006
Rules, the appellant could have been appointed only by the Panchayat  Samiti
on the post of Prakhand Teacher. Therefore, the Division Bench of  the  High
Court was not at all justified in recording a  finding  that  the  appellant
could have been appointed only  as  a  Prakhand  Teacher  by  the  Panchayat
Samiti on fixed pay. Unfortunately, the Division Bench overlooked  the  fact
that the appellant had been appointed as per  the  policy  of  compassionate
appointment framed  by  the  State  Government  and  that  policy  does  not
envisage the appointment of the dependant of a deceased  employee  on  fixed
pay.”




By the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court correctly  held
that  the  Appellants  have  no  legal  right   to   seek   appointment   on
compassionate grounds.  Compassionate  appointments  are  not  a  source  of
recruitment and they are made  to  provide  succour  to  the  family  of  an
employee  who  dies  in  harness.  In  the  State  of  Bihar   compassionate
appointments are governed by instructions issued by the Government. Some  of
the Appellants were recommended for appointment to  Class  III  posts  on  a
regular basis by the District Compassionate Committee.  However,  they  were
appointed as Prakhand Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/  Nagar  Shikshaks,  etc.
on a fixed pay.   The Appellants could not have been appointed  on  a  fixed
pay and they are entitled for appointment to either on Class  III  or  Class
IV posts on regular basis or payment of regular pay scale in  the  posts  of
as Prakhand Teachers/Panchayat  Shikshaks/Nagar  Shikshaks,  etc.  in  which
they are working at present.  Some of the Appellants  who  were  recommended
for  appointment  to  Class  III  posts  but  were  appointed  as   Prakhand
Teachers/Panchayat  Shikshaks/Nagar  Shikshaks,  etc.  on  fixed   pay   are
similarly situated  to  Vishwanath  Pandey  and  they  are  entitled  to  be
appointed on a regular pay scale.

The other Appellants who were appointed after 01.07.2006  are  not  entitled
to the relief granted to those  who  were  recommended  for  appointment  to
Class III or Class IV posts prior to that date.  A Full Bench of  the  Patna
High Court in State of Bihar and Others v. Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar,  reported
in (2010) 3 PLJR 294 (FB), held that the dependents of  deceased  Government
employees do not have a legal right to be  appointed  in  Government  posts.
Their appointments on compassionate grounds  shall  be  in  accordance  with
Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service  Conditions)  Rules,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) which came into  force  w.e.f.
01.07.2006.   Rule  10  of  the  said  Rules  provides  for  employment   on
compassionate grounds to the dependents of teaching/ non-teaching  employees
against available vacancies of  Panchayat  Teachers/Block  Teachers/Prakhand
Teachers, etc. Such appointments can be made only on  a  fixed  pay  by  the
committee constituted under the Rules. The  Appellants  who  have  not  been
recommended for appointment  to  Class  III  or  Class  IV  posts  prior  to
01.07.2006 are not covered by  Vishwanath  Pandey’s  case  (supra).  On  the
other hand, they are squarely covered by the judgment of Full Bench  of  the
Patna High Court.  They  are  not  similarly  situated  to  those  who  were
recommended for appointment to Class III posts  prior  to  01.07.2006.   The
Appellants, who were appointed after  01.07.2006,  the  date  on  which  the
Rules came into force, are not entitled to claim appointment on regular  pay
scales.  It is relevant to note that the judgment of the Full Bench  of  the
High Court of Patna was challenged before this  Court.   The  said  SLP  was
withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioners therein  to  approach  the
Government for suitable relief.

For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  direct  that  the  Appellants  who   were
recommended for appointment  to  Class  III  or  Class  IV  posts  prior  to
01.07.2006 will either be appointed on  Class  III  or  Class  IV  posts  on
regular basis or will be entitled for continuance as Teachers on  a  regular
pay scale.  The other Appellants who were appointed  after  01.07.2006  will
not be entitled for the relief of regular pay  scales.   However,  we  grant
them liberty to approach the State Government for suitable relief  in  terms
of the order passed in SLP (C) No.29655 of 2010.

The Appeals are disposed of.    No costs.


........................................J
                [S. A. BOBDE]





                    ..……................................J
                                                                    [L.
                               NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi,
April 3,  2017