Compassionate appointment was sought by a deceased teacher's married daughter. The court held that responsibility for her widowed mother did not establish the claim and found suppression of material financial facts. It dismissed the special appeal with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 3
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 267 of 2021
Appellant :- Smt Pragya Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
- That, the petitioner is only child in his family and she got marriage in the same District. The mother of the petitioner is house wife and more than 58 years old hence the total
2
responsibility came upon the petitioner due to single child of her parent.
3
Director of Education (Secondary) vs. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 704 (Para-6), Food Corporation of India vs. Ramkesh Yadav, (2007) 9 SCC 531 (Para.9), Indian Bank vs. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729, State of U.P. vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, 2013 (11) SCC 178 (Paras 11-15), N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnatka (2020) 17 SCC 617 (Para 18), State of H.P. vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 (Para 18), State of Gujarat vs. Arvind Kumar Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 (Para-8), MGB Gramin Bank V. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 13 SCC 583 (Para 6-9), Union of India vs. P. Venktesh (2019) 15 SCC 613 (Para.7), Union of India vs. V. R. Tripathi, (2019) 14 SCC 646 (Para 13) . The basic intention to grant compassionate appointment is that on the death of the employee concern his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood vide PNB Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 (para 4). It can not be claimed by way of inheritance vide State of Chhatisgarh & others Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (2009) 13 SCC 600 (para 10 and 12). In Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481 (para 11 & 12), the Apex Court held that Compassionate Appointment can not be treated as a Bonanza.
4
33).
"7. While considering the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties a recent decision of this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh (Supra) on the appointment on compassionate ground is required to
5
be referred to. After considering catena of decisions of this Court on appointment on compassionate grounds it is observed and held that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. It is further observed that the dependent of the deceased Government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State's policy. It is further observed and held that the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim of compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. It is further observed he/she is, however, entitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable on the day of death of the Government employee. The law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision on grant of appointment on compassionate ground can be summarized as under:
(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; (iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy; (v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.
8.............
8.1...........
8.2 Apart from the above one additional aspect needs to be noticed, which the High Court has failed to consider. It is to be noted that the deceased employee died on 25.03.2012. The respondent herein - original writ petitioner at that time was a married daughter. Her marriage was subsisting on the date of the death of the deceased i.e. on 25.03.2012. Immediately on the death of the deceased employee, the respondent initiated the divorced proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012 for decree of divorce by mutual consent. By Judgment dated 20.03.2013, the Learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandya granted the decree of divorce by mutual consent. That immediately on the very next day i.e. on 21.03.2013, the respondent herein on the basis of the decree of divorce by mutual consent applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The aforesaid chronology of dates and events would suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate
6
ground the decree of divorce by mutual consent has been obtained. Otherwise, as a married daughter she was not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise also the High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to consider the application of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as ''divorced daughter'. This is one additional ground to reject the application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground."
(Emphasis supplied by us)
"9. As per the law laid down by this court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.
9.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this court had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered decision of this court in case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in para 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:-
" 21 . The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930]. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)
"2. ... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and
7
merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in nonmanual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate 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 an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned." "26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding
8
precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case."
10.1 Applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the submissions on behalf of the respondent and the interpretation by the Division Bench of the High Court on Rule 5 of Rules 1974, is required to be considered.
10.2 The Division Bench of the High Court in the present case has interpreted Rule 5 of Rules 1974 and has held that ''suitable post' under Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate irrespective of the post held by the deceased employee. The aforesaid interpretation by the Division Bench of the High Court is just opposite to the object and purpose of granting the appointment on compassionate ground. 'Suitable post' has to be considered, considering status/post held by the deceased employee and the educational qualification/eligibility criteria is required to be considered, considering the post held by the deceased employee and the suitability of the post is required to be considered vis a vis the post held by the deceased employee, otherwise there shall be no difference/distinction between the appointment on compassionate ground and the regular appointment. In a given case it may happen that the dependent of the deceased employee who has applied for appointment on compassionate ground is having the educational qualification of Class-II or ClassI post and the deceased employee was working on the post of Class/Grade IV and/or lower than the post applied, in that case the dependent/applicant cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post. The aforesaid shall be contrary to the object and purpose of grant of appointment on compassionate ground which as observed hereinabove is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis on the death of the bread earner. As observed above, appointment
9
on compassionate ground is provided out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that some source of livelihood is provided and family would be able to make both ends meet.
10.3........
(Emphasis supplied by us)
15. Connected petitions are disconnected.
Order Date :- 1.12.2021/vkg
2 issues framed by the court
Did responsibility for a widowed mother establish a claim to compassionate appointment without disclosure of the family's financial circumstances?
Did suppression of material financial facts warrant rejection of the writ petition at the threshold?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V. Sivamurthy vs. State of A.P.Referred¶15
V. Sivamurthy vs. State of A.P., (2008) 13 SCC 730 · Who else cites this
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶15
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 · Who else cites this
Haryana SEB vs. Hakim SinghReferred¶15
Haryana SEB vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 at 87 · Who else cites this
Director of Education (Secondary) vs. Ankur GuptaReferred¶17
Director of Education (Secondary) vs. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 704 · Who else cites this
Food Corporation of India vs. Ramkesh YadavReferred¶17
Food Corporation of India vs. Ramkesh Yadav, (2007) 9 SCC 531 · Who else cites this
Indian Bank vs. PromilaReferred¶17
Indian Bank vs. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. vs. Pankaj Kumar VishnoiRelied on¶18
State of U.P. vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, 2013 (11) SCC 178 · Who else cites this
N.C. Santosh vs. State of KarnatkaReferred¶17
N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnatka (2020) 17 SCC 617 · Who else cites this
State of H.P. vs. Shashi KumarReferred¶17
State of H.P. vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 · Who else cites this
State of Gujarat vs. Arvind Kumar TiwariReferred¶17
State of Gujarat vs. Arvind Kumar Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 · Who else cites this
MGB Gramin Bank V. Chakrawarti SinghReferred¶17
MGB Gramin Bank V. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 13 SCC 583 · Who else cites this
Union of India vs. P. VenkteshReferred¶17
Union of India vs. P. Venktesh (2019) 15 SCC 613 · Who else cites this
PNB Vs. Ashwini Kumar TanejaRelied on¶17
PNB Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 · Who else cites this
State of Chhatisgarh & others Vs. Dhirjo Kumar SengarRelied on¶17
State of Chhatisgarh & others Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (2009) 13 SCC 600 · Who else cites this
Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶17
Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481 · Who else cites this
Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Lucknow & others Vs. Prabhat SinghRelied on¶18
Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Lucknow & others Vs. Prabhat Singh (2012) 13 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
SAIL Vs. MadhusudanRelied on¶18
SAIL Vs. Madhusudan (2008) 15 SCC 560 · Who else cites this
SBI Vs. Anju JainRelied on¶18
SBI Vs. Anju Jain (2008) 8SCC 475
SBI Vs. Surya N. TripathiRelied on¶21
SBI Vs. Surya N. Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739 · Who else cites this
General Manager (D & PB) and others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and otherRelied on¶22
General Manager (D & PB) and others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and other (2004)7 SCC 271 · Who else cites this
Union of India Vs. Shashank GoswamiRelied on¶23
Union of India Vs. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 · Who else cites this
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Satinder KumarRelied on¶23
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Satinder Kumar, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 597 · Who else cites this
The Director of Treasuries Karnataka & Anr. vs. SomyashreeRelied on¶24
The Director of Treasuries Karnataka & Anr. vs. Somyashree, in Civil Appeal No.5122 of 2021, decided on 13.09.2021
The State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. PremlataRelied on¶36
The State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Premlata in Civil Appeal No.6003 of 2021, decided on 05.10.2021
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and othersApplied¶53
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 · Who else cites this
Smt Pragya Dixit
State Of U.P.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
