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

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI SURAJ BHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      The respondent was appointed as a Driver on November 1, 1970 with  the appellant-Corporation.  By proceedings  dated August 7,  1992,  he  was  declared  unfit  to  drive  heavy vehicles. It  appears that he was given extension of service and he retired from service on 16.10.1995. In the meanwhile, he had  applied for  appointment of his son on compassionate grounds, he  being an  implied employee. Since the appellant had not  appointed him,  he filed  Writ Petition No.6291/93. The High  Court of  Punjab &  Haryana by  its judgment dated August 16,  1995 directed  the appellant  to appoint his son compassionate grounds. Thus, this appeal, by special leave.      In State of Haryana vs. Hawa Singh [1995 (2) SCALE 77], a Bench  of three  Judges of  this Court  had  considered  a similar question. The respondent therein, also, was declared medically unfit  for driving  heavy vehicles by the District Medical Officer due to defect in his eye sight. On the basis of the  medical report,  the respondent retired from service of  the  appellant-Corporation.  Then  he  had  applied  for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. This Court, after noticing  another judgment  of  this  Court  in  Anand Bihari & Ors. vs. RSRTC, Jaipur [)1991) 1 SCC 371], had held that the  scheme for appointment on compassionate grouds has no application  to the  persons who  retired from service on medical unfitness  to drive  heavy vehicles.  This Court had explained the  ratio in  Anand Bihari‘s  case in paragraph 6 and held  that the High Court was not justified in that case in directing  that one of the defendants-respondent therein, be given  a suitable  job commensurate  with the educational qualifications possessed  by them.  Thus,  the  approach  in Anand Bihari‘s case was not approved of and it was held that only in  exceptional circumstance,  where it is not possible to adjust  them in  any alternative  job, the  driver who is declared  medically   unit  may   be  paid  compensation  as indicated in Anand Bihari‘s case but not to make appointment on compassionate grounds.      In State  of Haryana & Ors. vs. Surjeet Singh [(1996) 5

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

SCALE 493], this Court had considered the very same question and held  that the  rules of  compassionate appointment  are inapplicable to  driver who  was disabled in sight to driver heavy   vehicles    and   that,   therefore,   compassionate appointment to  the son  of such  disabled driver  cannot be made.      Learned counsel  for the  respondent sought reliance on para 6  of the judgment wherein this Court had held that the order issued by the High Court was not to be interfered with pursuant to  the concession  made by  the  counsel  for  the appellant that  the case  of the  respondent‘s  son  therein would  be   considered.  Pursuant   thereto,  his  case  was considered and appointment was made and, therefore, the same benefit may  be given  to the  respondent‘s son herein also. Hawa Singh‘s  case was  not brought  to the  notice of  this Court in  Surjeet Singh‘s  case.  In  Surjeet  Singh‘s  case (supra), this Court had specifically laid down the law since the law  was laid  down for  the first time, in that case it was held  that the  direction issued for non-interference in that case  would not  be construed  to be a precedent. Under those circumstances,  it is  difficult to give acceptance to the contention  of the learned counsel for the respondent to allow his  son appointed  due to  the impugned direction, to remain in service.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the High Court  stands set aside. It is open to the respondent‘s son to  apply for  any of  the appointments,  if and when an advertisement is  made for  recruitment. In  that behalf, if and when he seeks selection in accordance with the rules, if he is  barred by  age by  that time,  the time  spent in the service of the appellant would be considered for relaxation. No costs.