The petition sought to amend or quash the JVVNL compassionate appointment scheme to include contract workers. The court held there is no statutory right to compassionate appointment and distinguished contract employees from regular staff. The petition was dismissed.
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.
[2023/RJJP/011097]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6643/2022
Shimla Devi W/o Late Shri Anil Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Near Petrol Pump, Nagar Road, Kathumar, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj, Advocate
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Judgment / Order
17/05/2023
Heard on admission.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
following relief :-
“It is therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record relating to the case and after perusing the same:
(i) By, an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned rule 2(b) of the JVVNL Compassionate Appointment of the Dependants of Deceased Nigam Servants Regulations, 2016, may kindly be amended by including the employees working on contract basis, in the definition of employees and then accordingly
(2 of 4)
[2023/RJJP/011097]
[CW-6643/2022]
may kindly be considered the candidature of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and then accordingly give appointment to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. (ii) Or by, an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned provisions of rule 2(b) of the JVVNL Compassionate Appointment of the Dependants of Deceased Nigam Servants Regulations, 2016, may kindly be quashed and set aside as the same is ultra vires. (iii) Any other order(s) which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
The petitioner is the unfortunate widow whose husband, while working in a contractual capacity engaged through placement agency, died due to electric shock. The petitioner’s case is that in whatever capacity her husband was engaged for the work of Respondent No.2, it, as model employer, is obliged under the spirit of public employment to provide compassionate appointment. It is argued that the present scheme of compassionate appointment prevalent in the establishment of Respondent No.2 does not allow the benefit of compassionate appointment to contractual employees engaged through placement agency. Therefore, the scheme is arbitrary and discriminatory because the other person, though in regular capacity and regular employment, perform the same work which is performed by a contractual employee. That should not be made a basis to discriminate insofar as policy of compassionate appointment is concerned.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merit.
[2023/RJJP/011097]
[CW-6643/2022]
(3 of 4)
It is well settled legal position that there is no right to compassionate appointment as such. Appointment to public post/public employment is only through the procedure known to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As an exception, in appropriate category of cases, policy of compassionate appointment has been adopted in public employment system by the State. One of the important consideration for grant of compassionate appointment is engagement of a person in the regular services in a public institution. The scheme of compassionate appointment is normally applied only in those cases where the person is in service as a regular employee.
It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was engaged by a placement agency/Respondent No.3 under a contract work given to Respondent No.3 by Respondent No.2. It is quite unfortunate that the husband of the petitioner died due to electric shock. However, at the same time, it cannot be said that the husband of the petitioner, who was engaged through placement agency, is similarly situated as the regular employee in the employment of Respondent No.2- JVVNL. The relief sought in the writ petition that respondents should be directed to amend the compassionate policy could not be granted by this Court as there is no mandate either under the Constitution or even under any other law for the time being in force and applicable in the matter of employment with Respondent No.2, creating any such constitutional/public right to seek compassionate appointment. A regular employee and an employee engaged through placement agency cannot be treated at par. The grievance is based mainly on the assumption that
(4 of 4)
[2023/RJJP/011097]
[CW-6643/2022]
the deceased and the regular employee to whom the compassionate employee is applicable, are similarly situated. The assumption, if we may say so, is misplaced in law.
Leaving the petitioner to work out such other remedy as may be available to her under the law to seek appropriate compensation/damages on account of death of her husband due to electric shock, this petition is dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
Mohita /19
3 issues framed by the court
Whether contractual employees engaged through a placement agency are similarly situated to regular employees for the purpose of compassionate appointment policy.
Whether the High Court has the authority to direct an amendment to a public employment compassion scheme to include contractual workers.
Whether a constitutional or statutory right to compassionate appointment exists for employees engaged by third-party agencies.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shimla Devi W/o Late Shri Anil Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Managing Director, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited
Teleperformance Global Service Pvt. Ltd.
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Anil Kumar Upman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
