http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1616 of 2008

PETITIONER: A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad & Ors

RESPONDENT: Sarvarunnisa Begum

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2008

BENCH: P.P. Naolekar & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1616 OF 2008 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17587 of 2005)

P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.:

1.      Leave granted. 2.      The respondent’s husband died in harness while in service of  the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the  Corporation").  The respondent-widow submitted an application  expressing her willingness to accept additional monetary benefit in  lieu of employment as per the Scheme.  The appellant-Corporation  gave additional monetary benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent  in lieu of her not claiming any employment in the Corporation.   Subsequently, the respondent made a request that the additional  monetary benefit may be taken back and to  provide  her employment  on compassionate grounds.  When the Corporation refused, she filed  a writ petition in the High Court, claiming compassionate  appointment.  Learned Single Judge of the High Court held that  merely because additional monetary benefits are given to the  respondent, her case for appointment on compassionate grounds  cannot be rejected, and gave direction to consider the case of the  respondent for appointment under "Bread Winner Scheme".   Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, the appellant-Corporation  filed writ appeal.    Although there was no appeal filed by the  respondent, the Division Bench of the High Court modified the order  of the Single Judge to the extent of directing appointment of the  respondent to the post of Conductor/Attender, whichever available,  within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of  the order and for refund of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by the  respondent on such appointment.  This order is under challenge  before us.

3.      This Court time and again has held that the compassionate  appointment would be given to the dependent of the deceased who  died in harness to get over the difficulties on the death of the bread- earner.  In Umesh Kumar Nagpal  vs.  State of Haryana and  Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court has held as under:

       "The whole object of granting compassionate  employment is 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 post in non-manual 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.

       Offering compassionate employment as a matter of  course irrespective of the financial condition of the family  of the deceased and making compassionate  appointments in posts above Classes III and IV, is legally  impermissible."

                                                       (Headnote-C)

4.      In the present case, the additional monetary benefit has been  given to the widow apart from the benefits available to the widow after  the death of her husband to get over the financial constraints on  account of sudden death of her husband and, thus, as a matter of  right, she was not entitled to claim the compassionate appointment  and that too when it had not been brought to the notice of the Court  that any vacancy was available where the respondent could have  been accommodated by giving her a compassionate appointment.   That apart, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed an  error in modifying the direction of the Single Judge by directing the  Corporation to appoint the respondent when no appeal was preferred  by the respondent challenging order of the Single Judge.   5.      For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the orders  of the High Court are set aside.