http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RANI DEVI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/07/1996

BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   646        1996 SCALE  (5)338

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T N.P. SINGH. J.      Leave granted.      These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana for  setting aside  the orders  passed on  two  writ petitions filed  by respondents  Rani Devi  and Anguri Devi, directing  the   appellant-State   to   appoint   the   said respondents against  class-IV posts on compassionate grounds in view of the fact that their respective husband died while working  as   Apprentice  Canal  Patwaris.  The  husband  of respondent Rani Devi worked as Apprentice Canal Patwari from 25.8.1987 to  25.2.1989, whereas  the husband  of respondent Anguri  Devi   worked  as   Apprentice  Canal  Patwari  from 15.7.1992 to 2.6.1993.      There is  no dispute  that  the  husbands  of  the  two respondents had been appointed on ad-hoc basis as Apprentice Canal Patwaris.  According to  the court punishment, in this back ground there is no question of issuing any direction in respect of  appointments of  the  respondents  who  are  the widows on  compassionate grounds.  In this  connection,  our attention was drawn to the Punjab Civil Services Rules which we are  informed are  in force even in the State of Haryana. Paragraph 2.6  of chapter  II defines ’Apprentice’ to mean a person deputed  for training  in a  trade or business with a view to  employment in  Government service, who draws pay at monthly rates  from the Government during such training, but is not  employed in  or against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of  the department.  Reference was  also made  to  the decision of  the State  Government  which  was  notified  on 9.5.1972 saying  that the  scheme of  benefit  of  ex-gratia payment to  the dependant  of the  employees of  the Haryana Government who  died while  in service was not applicable to ad-hoc employees.  The stand of the State is that any scheme in respect  of payment  to one  of  the  dependents  of  the deceased Government  employee is  not applicable  to casual, ad-hoc employees or employees who are just apprentices.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    It appears  that on  31.10.1985,  a  communication  was issued by  the State Government to all concerned saying that Government had introduced payment of ex-gratia grant for the welfare of  the ’deceased  Government employees’ in order to assist the  members of  the  bereaved  family  for  settling themselves. The  scheme also  conceived giving employment to one of the dependants of the deceased employee. According to state, the  expression  ’employee’  used  in  the  aforesaid communication shall not include casual, ad-hoc employee or a person who has been appointed as an Apprentice.      The question of appointment of one of the dependants of an employee  of the  State or  Central Government  who  dies while in  service has of late assumed importance and subject matter of controversy before different courts. This Court in the case  of Smt.  Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1976 = (1989) 4 SCC 468 after referring to the Government  Memorandum under  which the  appointment  on compassionate ground  was being  claimed observed  that  the purpose of  providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate  the hardship  due to  the death  of  the  bread earner  in  the  family.  It  cannot  be  on  disputed  that appointment on  compassionate ground  is an exception to the equaliity clause  under Article 14 and can be upheld if such appointees can  be held  to  form  a  class  by  themselves, otherwise any such appointment merely on the ground that the person concerned happens to be a dependant of an ex-employee of the  State Government  or the Central Government shall be violative of  Articles 14  and 16  of the  Constitution. But this Court  has held  that if  an  employee  dies  while  in service then  accordiing  to  rule  framed  by  the  Central Government or  the State  Government to  appoint one  of the dependants shall  not be  violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution  because it is to mitigate the hardship due to the  death of  the bread  earner of the family and sudden misery faced  by the  members of the family of such employee who  had   served  the   Central  Government  or  the  State Government. It  appears that  this  benefit  has  also  been extended to  the employees  of the  authorities which can be held to  be a  State within the meaning of Articie 12 of the Constitution. But  while framing  any  rule  in  respect  of appointment on  compassionate ground the authorities have to conscious of  the  fact  that  this  right  which  is  being extended to  a dependant  of the  deceased  employee  is  an exception to the right granted to the citizen under Articles 14 and  16 of  the Constitution.  As such  there should be a proper check  and balance.  Of late, it appears the right to be appointed  on compassionate  ground is being claimed as a right   of inheritance irrespective of the nature of service rendered  by   the  deceased   employee.  In   many   cases, applications for  appointments on  compassionate grounds are being made even after 10-15 years because on the date of the death of  the employee  the applicant  was a minor and could not have  been appointed.  In the  case  of  Life  Insurance Corporation of  India vs.  Asha Ramchhandra  Ambekar & Anr., (1994) 2 SCC 718 this Court pointed out that the High Courts and the  Administrative Tribunals cannot issue directions on sympathetic   considerations   to   make   appointments   on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do  not cover and contemplate such appointments. Any such right  for appointment on compassionate ground flows on basis of  rules, regulations  or some  administrative  order issued in  the form  of resolution  or office memorandum. In the case  of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994)  4  SCC  138,  it  was  impressed  that  as  a  rule, appointments in  public services  should be made strictly on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

basis of  open invitation  of applications  and  merit.  The appointment on  compassionate ground was an exception to the aforesaid rule  taking into  consideration the  fact of  the death of  the employee  while in  service  and  leaving  his family without  any means  of livelihood. In such cases, the object is  to enable  the family to tide over sudden crisis. However, such  appointments on compassionate grounds 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. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali, (1994) 4 SCC 448 on an appeal filed by State of Haryana, a 3-Judges Bench of this  Court deprecated  the direction  given by  the High Court to  appoint the  respondent of the said case against a post of an Inspector and it was observed that the High Court should have  merely directed  consideration of  the claim of the said respondent in accordance with rules.      It need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for  appointment on  compassionate ground is based on the  ground that  he was  a  dependant  on  the  deceased employee. Strictly  this claim cannot be upheld on the touch stone of  Articles 14  or 16  of the  Constitution. But this Court has  upheld this claim as reasonable and permissibe on employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is  why it  is necessary  for the  authorities to frame rules, regulations  or to  issue such  administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16.      So far  the facts of the present case are concerned, we fail to  appreciate as  to how  the High Court directed that the respondents  aforesaid  be  appointed  on  compassionate ground  when  admittedly  the  respective  husbands  of  the respondents were  working as  Apprentice Canal  Patwaris for the  periods   mentioned  above.  If  the  scheme  regarding appointment on compassionate ground is extended to all sorts of casual,  ad-hoc employees including those who are working as Apprentices,  then such  scheme cannot  be  justified  on constitutional grounds.  It need  not be  pointed  out  that appointments on compassionate grounds, are made as a matter, of course,  without even  requiring the  person concerned to face any  Selection Committee.  In the  case of  Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) it was said:           "It is  obvious from the above      observations that  the  High  Court      endorses the  policy of  the  State      Government  to  make  compassionate      appointment in  posts equivalent to      the  posts  held  by  the  deceased      employees and  above Class  III and      IV. It  is unnecessary to reiterate      that   these    observations    are      contrary to  law. If  the dependant      of the  deceased employee  finds it      below his  dignity  to  accept  the      post offered,  he is free not to do      so. The  post  is  not  offered  to      cater to  his status but to see the      family   through    the    economic      calamity." It was  also impressed  that appointments  on  compassionate ground cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be  specified in  the rules  because the  right to such employment is  not a  vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.      According to  us, when  the aforesaid  Government Order dated 31.10.1985  extends the  benefit of appointment to one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

of the  dependants of the ’deceased employee’ the expression ’employee’  does   not  conceive  casual  or  purely  ad-hoc employee  or   those  who   are  working   as   apprentices. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders on  the   two  writ   petitions,  filed  on  behalf  of  the respondents are set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.