PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus NIRVAL SINGH on 6 May 2019

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.D

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The respondent sought compassionate appointment on accountof the death of his father on 17.05.2004, who was working with theappellants. On the date the application was submitted, the policy forEcompassionate appointment dated 21.11.2002, is stated to have been inforce.

4. The respondent did not get any compassionate appointmentand it is the case of the appellants that the implementation of the policywas kept in abeyance on account of the consideration of a new policy.FThe new policy came into effect on 23.11.2004. The respondent wassought to be granted the benefit under the new policy in terms whereofsolatium of Rs. 3 lakhs was offered to him. In the alternative therespondent was also offered the benefit of temporary post. He declinedboth the options.

5. For the first time the respondent approached any judicial forumin the year 2011 by filing a Writ Petition which was disposed of on12.03.2012 to consider his application in a time bound manner as perpolicy. The petitioner, however, rejected the request. In the secondWrit Petition filed assailing this decision, the respondent was relegatedto the remedy of a civil suit as requested. The respondent filed the civil G

H

suit where his suit was initially dismissed but thereafter the appeal wasallowed and in terms of the impugned order the second appeal has alsobeen dismissed.

6. These orders are now sought to be assailed by the appellants.

7. The fundamental principle which has to be kept in mind is thatthere is no inherent right to obtain a compassionate appointment andsuch compassionate appointment has to be in accordance with the existingpolicy as the objective is to ameliorate the condition of the family at therelevant stage of time and it is the deviation from the rule of merit.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attentionto the Judgment of this Court in State Bank of India and Another v.Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 where paragraphs 8 and 13 are as under:

“8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate groundsis not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exceptionto the general rule that recruitment to public services should be onthe basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunityto all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. Thedependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have anyspecial claim or right to employment, except by way of theconcession that may be extended by the employer under the rulesor by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased toget over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionateappointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed bythe employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoeveroutside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can bemade only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished,any pending application seeking appointment under the schemewill also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that anapplication was made when the scheme was in force, will not byitself create a right in favour of the applicant.

“13. Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the newscheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pendingapplications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme,then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionateappointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may A

B

C

DEF

G

H

908SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 7 S.C.R.

Awind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time dependingupon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts.”

9. In our view there is more than one impediment in the way ofthe respondent.

10. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressalBafter a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The veryobjective of providing immediate amelioration to the family isextinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolishedand the new policy having coming into force, the application has beenconsidered under the new policy and the options available were offeredCto the respondent who failed to avail of the same.11. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of thenew policy which reads as under:

“The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the dateof issue of instructions. The cases, where compassionateDemployment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlierpolicy since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite relief,in lieu compassionate employment, shall be granted as per abovepolicy instructions.”

12. We are thus of the view that the offer of solatium could beEthe only remedy available, more so at this stage of time.

13. The solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs was offered immediately on 19[th]September, 2004. We are informed that as per the current policy thesolatium has been revised to Rs. 5 lakhs. That being the position and therespondent having been deprived of the benefit of the amount, albeit byFhis own conduct, the interest of justice would be served by directing thatthe sum of Rs. 5 lakhs be paid to the respondent within two monthsfrom today.

14. The appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to beartheir own costs.

G

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

H