FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. & ORS versus ANUSREE K.B. on 30 September 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Kerala atErnakulam in Writ Appeal No. 543 of 2021 by which the Division Benchof the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal preferred by theappellants and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by thelearned Single Judge directing the appellants to consider the case of therespondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground, the originalappellants – Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. havepreferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 That father of the respondent was employed as a loading helperwith the appellant No. 1 and expired while on duty on 19.04.1995. At thetime of death of the employee, the wife of the deceased employee wasserving and therefore, was not eligible for appointment on compassionateground considering the scheme for employment of dependents of theemployees dying in harness. After a period of 14 years, after the deathof the deceased employee, the respondent daughter of the deceasedemployee made a representation seeking appointment on compassionatebasis. That her application for compassionate appointment was rejectedon 12.02.2018 on the grounds that her name was not in the list of dependentssubmitted by the deceased employee and that the policy was to giveemployment to widow or son or unmarried daughter of the deceasedemployee.

2.2 The rejection of the application for compassionate appointmentwas the subject matter of writ petition before the learned Single Judge.Vide order dated 13.11.2019, the learned Single Judge disposed of thewrit petition with the directions to the appellants to reconsider theapplication of the respondent in accordance with Clause 1 of the Scheme.

2.3 That on 12.12.2019, after reconsideration, the appellants againrejected the application of the respondent for appointment oncompassionate ground on the grounds that it did not meet the primarytest of scheme that the deceased employee should be the “sole breadwinner of his family”, since his wife was gainfully employed with theKerala State Health Services Department at the time of his death and A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aalso on the ground that 24 years have lapsed since the date of death ofthe deceased employee.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated13.11.2019, rejecting the application of the respondent for appointmenton compassionate ground, the respondent filed a writ petition before theBHigh Court.

2.5 By the judgment and order dated 22.01.2021, the learned SingleJudge allowed the said writ petition and directed the appellants to reconsiderthe respondent’s claim strictly in terms of the observations and directionspassed in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2019 passedCin Writ Petition No. 11234 of 2018 (earlier round of litigation).

2.6 The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judgewas the subject matter of appeal before the Division Bench of the HighCourt by way of present writ appeal. By the impugned judgment andorder, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writDappeal, which has given rise to the present appeal before this Court.

3. Shri Siddharth Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstancesof the case and, more particularly, when the application for appointmenton compassionate ground was made by the respondent – daughter ofEthe deceased employee after a period of 14 years from the death of thedeceased employee, the Hon’ble High Court ought not to have directedthe appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointmenton compassionate ground. It is submitted that to reconsider the case ofthe respondent now for appointment on compassionate ground after aperiod of 24 years would be against the object and purpose of appointmentFon compassionate ground namely to meet out the difficulties created onaccount of sudden death of the sole bread earner. Reliance is placed onthe decision of this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries inKarnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704and another decision of this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh Vs.GState of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617.

3.1 Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions,it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Sanjay Parikh,learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

H

4.1 It is submitted that at the relevant time when the deceasedemployee died in the year 1995, the respondent was minor. It is submittedthat on attaining the age of majority, the respondent daughter made anapplication for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submittedthat initially when the application of the respondent for appointment oncompassionate ground was rejected, the same was not on the groundsubsequently mentioned while passing the order dated 13.11.2019 namelydelay. It is submitted that in the year 2018, even the respondent wascalled for the interview, however, at that time, the appointment was deniedon the ground that in the dependent’s list, the name of the respondent isnot mentioned, which was found to be factually incorrect. It is submittedthat therefore, the respondent cannot be denied the appointment oncompassionate ground on the ground of delay. Therefore, it is prayed notto interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

6. The respondent’s father was serving as a loading helper. Hedied in the year 1995. At the relevant time, the widow of the deceasedemployee – mother of the respondent was serving in the Kerala StateHealth Services Department and, therefore, as such was not eligibleand/or entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. After a periodof approximately 14 years, the respondent being a daughter of the deceasedemployee submitted an application for appointment on compassionateground, which has been rejected by the appellants. At this stage, it isrequired to be noted that in the meantime, the respondent got married inthe year 2013. It is also required to be noted that by the time, the learnedSingle Judge passed the order, which has been confirmed by the DivisionBench, more than 24 years have passed after the death of the deceasedemployee. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is requiredto be considered whether still the respondent shall be entitled toappointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, whodied in the year 1995?

7. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, thelaw laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of thedeceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. Inthe recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries inKarnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704,had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aon compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court inN.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Courthas summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment oncompassionate ground as under:-

(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to theBgeneral rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of theState has to be made on the basis of the principle inaccordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ofCIndia;

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made onlyon fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy; D(v)the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of theapplication should be the basis for consideration of claimfor compassionate appointment.

8. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions onthe appointment on compassionate ground, for all the governmentvacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants asEmandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However,appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of adeceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionateground is a concession and not a right.

8.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs.FShashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had anoccasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment oncompassionate ground and considered the decision of this Court in thecase of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC289, in paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:-G“

“21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind PrakashVerma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been consideredsubsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to thosedecisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionateappointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh KumarHNagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles which have beenlaid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been subsequentlyfollowed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. Theseprinciples are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh KumarNagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994)4 SCC 138], SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)

“2. … As a rule, appointments in the public servicesshould be made strictly on the basis of open invitation ofapplications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor anyother consideration is permissible. Neither the Governmentsnor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any otherprocedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules forthe post. However, to this general rule which is to be followedstrictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out inthe interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. Onesuch exception is in favour of the dependants of an employeedying in harness and leaving his family in penury and withoutany means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarianconsideration taking into consideration the fact that unless somesource of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able tomake both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to providegainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceasedwho may be eligible for such employment. The whole object ofgranting compassionate employment is thus to enable the familyto tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a memberof such family a post much less a post for post held by thedeceased. What is further, mere death of an employee inharness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.The Government or the public authority concerned has toexamine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision ofemployment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis thata job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. Theposts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non- manualand manual categories and hence they alone can be offered oncompassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family,of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aan exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is notdiscriminatory. The favourable treatment given to suchdependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rationalnexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief againstdestitution. No other posts are expected or required to begiven by the public authorities for the purpose. It must beBremembered in this connection that as against the destitute familyof the deceased there are millions of other families which areequally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made infavour of the family of the deceased employee is in considerationof the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations,Cand the change in the status and affairs, of the family engenderedby the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.”

A

26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz YunusMulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] has adoptedthe principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not aDsource of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of thedeceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial positionof the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of theprovisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind PrakashVerma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observedEthat it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of thisCourt have been taken note of in that case.”

9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general ruleof appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependentsFof a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury andwithout any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of purehumanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unlesssome source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able tomake both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainfulGemployment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may beeligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionateemployment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by thedeceased.

H

9.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering theobservations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for whichthe appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondentshall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on thedeath of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 yearsfrom the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not beentitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such anappointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the sameshall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment oncompassionate ground is provided.

9.2 Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge aswell as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a seriouserror in directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondentfor appointment on compassionate ground. The impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The judgment and order passed by the learnedSingle Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court are herebyquashed and set aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Preetam Bharti, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H