Date of judgement:
29 September 2020
Bench:
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Justice Aniruddha Bose
Justice Krishna Murari
Parties:
Appellant – The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Respondent – Amit Shrivas
Subject
Compassionate appointment is a social security scheme under which appointment is granted on a compassionate basis to a dependent family member when a Government servant dies while in service. In this case, the question arose as to whether the son of the deceased work-charged employee can be entitled to such compassionate appointment?
Legal Provisions
- Rule 2(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Pension Rules, 1979 – Permanent employee means a contingency/work-charged employee having completed fifteen years of service.
- Article 136 of the Indian Constitution – Special Leave Petition.
- Article 142 of the Indian Constitution – Power of Supreme Court to pass any order or decree to do complete justice.
Overview
- Late Shri Ranglal Shrivas was employed as a driver in the Tribal Welfare Department, Madhya Pradesh, for a period of 23 years, from 1984 till he passed away in 2009. His son Amit Shrivas (respondent) made an application for a compassionate appointment based on the fact that his father was made a permanent employee and was paid a salary at a regular pay scale.
- This application was rejected by the appellants because the deceased employee was drawing his salary from the work charge/contingency fund, under which there was no provision for the grant of compassionate appointment. However, keeping in mind clause 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Pension Rules, 1976 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of compassionate grant was paid to the respondent.
- The aggrieved respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He contended that Rule 2(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Pension Rules, 1979 stipulates that a work-charged employee who has completed more than 15 years of service shall be considered as a permanent employee and shall avail all such benefits. The Court accepted this contention and ruled in favour of the respondent.
- When an appeal was made to the Division Bench, it was rejected. The Bench also added that if in case compassionate appointment is granted to the respondent, he shall forthwith return back the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellants. Still unhappy with the judgement, the State of Madhya Pradesh approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 by the way of a Special Leave Petition.
Issues
- Whether the respondent is entitled to compassionate employment if his father was a work-charged employee in the Tribal Welfare Department?
Judgement
- The 3 judge Bench held that there cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment. Rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide support or aid to the family. It said that since 11 years have passed, the aspect of providing support to the family immediately does not survive.
- The Apex Court also opined that there is a distinction between a regular employee, a work-charged employee, and a permanent employee. In Ram Naresh Rawat V. Ashwini Ray & Ors, it was established that classification does not put a person on the same pedestal as that of a regular employee.
- Thus, it was held by the Court that even though a person initially hired as work charged employee after 15 years of service becomes a permanent employee, but only for the limited purpose of pension and kramonnati (promotion).
- Based on the aforementioned observations and facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that they are unable to provide relief to the respondents because of legal constraints. Hence, they are not entitled to a compassionate appointment.
- The court also reiterated its judgement in Indian Bank & Ors. Vs Promila & Anr, wherein it was held that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of an appointment.
- However, the Court took cognizance of the fact that the respondent is the sole breadwinner of the family and that the deceased's ailing wife and three daughters are absolutely dependent on him.
- Hence, invoking its power under Article 142, the Court increased the compassionate grant payable to the respondent from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- in the interest of justice. The amount was payable within 2 months and in case of default, shall carry interest @ 12 % per annum.
Conclusion
In this case, the Court had asserted that they intended to help the poor family of the respondents but were unable to because of legal constraints. However, it adopted a similar approach as in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Others V. Nirval Singh and increased the amount payable to the respondent by using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The 3 judge Bench had unanimously decided that no compassionate appointment can be given to the relative, on the death of a work-charged employee.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
