CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR & OTHERSversusBHARAT CHANDRA BEHERA & ANOTHER

                   [2013] 16 S.C.R. 1045


  CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR & OTHERS                       A
                             v.
       BHARAT CHANDRA BEHERA & ANOTHER
           (Civil Appeal No. 10996 of 2013)

                   DECEMBER 12, 2013
                                                                B
 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
            IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

    Service Law:
                                                                c
     Appointment - Under scheme of employer for assistance
to displaced persons whose land was acquired for setting up
its establishment - After death of the appointee, his brother
seeking appointment - High Court directing the employer to
appoint the brother of the deceased employee - On appeal,
                                                                0
held: The claim for appointment was neither covered under
the scheme of 'land displaced persons' nor under the scheme
of compassionate appointment - Hence, the claim for
appointment was rightly rejected by the employer.

    The land belonging to the joint family of respondent        E
No.1 was acquired at the instance of National Aluminium
Company Ltd. (NALCO) for setting up its establishment.
Under the scheme introduced by NALCO, for assistance
of displaced persons whose lands were acquired,
brother of first respondent was appointed with NALCO            F
as 'mazdoor'. When brother of first respondent died in a
road accident, first respondent approached NALCO for
his appointment in place of his brother, which was denied
by NALCO. First respondent filed writ petition, wherein
the High Court directed NALCO to provide employment             G
to the first respondent under the Scheme of land
displaced persons relying on two similar cases wherein
appointment had been given to the brothers of the
deceased employees. Hence the present appeal.
                            1045                                H
    1046   SUPREME COURT REPORTS           (2013] 16 S.C.R.

A      Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The High Court failed to examine the issue
  in the proper perspective. The appointment relating to
  land given cases, as well as compassionate appointment
  in NALCO are governed by specific schemes and the
8 Division Bench of the High Court failed to examine those
  schemes before issuing the ultimate direction to the
  appellants. [Para 5] [1050-F, G]

       2. The provisions under the land displaced persons
c scheme, makes it clear that in respect of a claim under
  the category of a "land displaced persons", owned by a
  family, it is for the head of the family to nominate one
  among his family members who is his dependant, that
  such nomination under special circumstances would be
D allowed to be changed once, that such nominated
  person would be authenticated by the concerned
  Revenue Officer and befitting the qualification possessed
  by such a nominee, the appointment would be made. The
  provision for changing the nominee under special
E circumstances is far different from anyone seeking for
  appointment of an alternate candidate in the place of
  originally nominated person whose employment for no
  fault of NALCO ceased to survive due to unforeseen
  circumstances like death, etc. The provisions contained
F in the scheme does not provide for appointment of an
  alternate candidate in place of originally nominated
  person whose appointment had already taken effect and
  for whatsoever reason the said appointment did not
  survive later on. [Para 11] [1053-G, H; 1054-A-C]
G      3. Apart from the above scheme providing for
  employment under the category of "land displaced
  persons", the only other scope for anyone to claim
  appointment in NALCO is under the scheme of
  "employment on compassionate ground". The guidelines
H relating to "employment on compassionate. ground" is
 CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR v. BHARAT CHANDRA 104 7
                     BEHERA·

conditional to the effect that such employment would be           A
considered only in the case of accidental death arising
out of and in the course of employment as governed by
the provisions of the Workman's Compensation Act. It is
also stipulated that such appointment might be offered
on being satisfied that there is no other means of                B
livelihood for the family of the deceased employee. The
very vital condition under the compassionate
employment scheme is that such employment can be
claimed only by the dependant wife or son or daughter
of the deceased, who possess the minimum· requisite               c
qualification for any non-executive post. [Paras 12 and 13]
[1054-D; 1055-C-D]

      4. The claim of the first respondent was under the land
displaced persons scheme. When the said claim is
considered, indisputably his elder brother was offered            D
appointment under the said category and was also
appointed as a Mazdoor. He continued to discharge his
duties as a Mazdoor till his death in some road accident.
Having regard to the factum of the appointment of the first
respondent's elder brother having fructified under the            E
scheme meant for "land displaced persons" as a validly
nominated person of the family, whose land was acquired
by NALCO, it will have to be held that the availability of the
said benefit had come to an end once and for all. Once the
benefit under the said scheme was duly availed, there             F
would be no scope for anyone to approach NALCO for
appointment for any other person under the said scheme
in the absence of any provision providing for making such
a claim. The only scope was to make a claim under the
scheme of "compassionate appointment". But, when the              G
first respondent did not fit in any of the beneficiaries, under
the scheme of "compassionate appointment", the
appellants rightly declined his claim. [Paras 14 and 15]
[1055-F-H; 1056-A-D]

    5. The appointments of two persons in place of their          H
    1048     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2013] 16 S.C.R.


A brothers (whereon High Court relied on while granting
    relief to the first respondent) were not in accordance with
    the scheme. When once it was found that those two
    appointments were irregular and not strictly in
    accordance with the scheme providing for appointment
B in the case of land displaced persons, it can only be
    stated that the same would be hit by the principle of one
  . illegality cannot be the basis for committing another. In
    other words, two wrongs do not make one right.
    Therefore, the appointments of two pesons though came
c to be made in the place of death of their brothers in
    accidents, the same cannot be quoted as valid precedent
    for the first respondent to claim employment. Therefore,
    the first respondent had no right to claim for employment
    in NALCO either under the scheme for "land displaced
    persons" or by way of "compassionate appointment"
0
    pursuant to the death of his deceased elder brother.
    [Paras 16, 17 and 18] [1056-G; 1057-A-C; 1058-B, E, F]

         Union of India and Anr. vs. International Trading Co. and
    Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 437: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 55 - relied on.
E
                         Case Law Reference :
        2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 55 relied on               Para 17
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F   10996 of 2013.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2008 of the
    High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in O.J.C. No. 369 of 1998.

      Ashok K. Gupta, Sunita Sharma, Pallavi Gupta for the
G Appellants.

        Aishwarya Bhati, Ayushi Mittal, Sanjoli Mittal for the
    Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
 CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR v. BHARAT CHANDRA 1049
                     BEHERA
     FAKKIRMOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. Leave                      A
granted.

     2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated 25.04.2008
in O.J.C. No.369 of 1998. The first appellant before us is the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director of National Aluminium
                                                                       B
Company Limited (in short "NALCO") along with its Chief
Personal Manager (S & P) and Deputy General Manager (P &
A).

     3. The short question for consideration in this appeal is         C
whether the Division Bench was justified in directing the
appellants to provide employment to the first respondent herein
under the scheme introduced by NALCO for assistance to
displaced persons whose lands are acquired for the purpose
of setting up NALCO's establishment at Angul.                          D

       4. The brief facts are that the first respondent's brother
Trilochan Behera came to be appointed under the rehabilitation
assistance scheme by which such appointment was provided
to displaced persons. The said Trilochan Behera, who came
to be appointed on 22.10. 1992, met with a road accident on
                                                                       E
03.11.1996 and lost his life. Late Mr. Trilochan Behera is the
elder brother of the first respondent herein. The lands belonged
to the joint family, consisted of the father of the first respondent
one Nakula Behera, his wife Jeera Behera, the deceased
Trilochan Behera, the first respondent, one Arata Behera, the          F
younger brother of first respondent a.nd Dulana Behera and
Bhulana Behera, the two younger sisters of the first respondent.
An ext~nt of 33 1h decimals of land was acquired at the
instance of NALCO. As provided under the scheme for
providing employment to displaced persons and based on the             G
nomination made by the head of the family, i.e. the father of the
first respondent Nakula Behera, the deceased Trilochan Behera
was appointed on 22.10.1992 as a Mazdoor. Unfortunately,
after about four years of his appointment, he died in a ro2rJ
                                                                       H
    1050     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 16 S.C.R.

A accident on 03.11.1996. When the first respondent approached
    NALCO on 27.01.1997 to give him employment in the place
    of his brother, NALCO declined his request. Thereafter, the first
    respondent preferred the writ petition in the High Court on
    05.01.1998, in which the impugned order dated 25.04.2008
B came to be passed by the High Court directing NALCO to
    consider the claim of the first respondent for employment in any
    of the posts befitting his qualification on the ground that his
    brother died in an accident occurred out of and in the course
    of his employment. The High Court further directed that such
C exercise, as directed, should be completed within a period of
    three months from the date of communication of the order. For
    giving the above directions, the Division Bench relied upon the
    case of Alekh Bhutia, who was also similarly placed like that
    of Trilochan Behera and who was appointed as Mazdoor on
    03.08.1985 and after his death in an accident on 07.06.1986
D his brother Sanjay Bhutia was appointed and in the case of one
  · Sanjaya Dwibedi, who was appointed on 02.05.1986, who also
    died in an accident and after his death his brother Bijay Dwibedi
    was appointed in 1995.

E      5. We heard Mr. Ashok K. Gupta, senior counsel for the
  appellants and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, counsel for the first
  respondent. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
  and having bestowed our serious consideration to the issue
  raised before us, we are of the considered opinion that the High
F Court failed to examine the issue in the proper perspective. We
  say so because we find that the appointment relating to land
  given cases, as well as compassionate appointment in NALCO
  are governed by specific schemes and the Division Bench of
  the High Court unfortunately failed to examine those schemes
G before issuing the ultimate direction to the appellants.
         6. In order to appreciate the legal issues raised in this
    appeal, at the very outset, it is necessary to note the terms of
    the scheme to provide employment under the category of "Land
    Displaced Persons". Paragraphs 2.1 (a), 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 and 4
H
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR v. BHARAT CHANDRA 1051
   BEHERA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

will be relevant, which can be usefully referred to. The said         A
paragraphs read as under:

    "2.1 (a) One nominated per~on of each such land displaced
    person/substantial affected person family will be offered
    employment subject to vacancies being available and the           8
    nominee possessing the requisite qualification/skill, and
    further subject to the condition that land displaced person
    will get preference over substantial affected persons;"

    2.4 Such preferential assistance to the land displaced
    persQn/substantially affected person will cease beyond a          C
    period of dne year from the date of the commissioning of
    the units. Further, the types of assistance referred to earlier
    will be confined to the unit concerned and not to another
    unit of the company.

    3.1 After the vacarit possession of the land has been taken
    over by the Government/National Aluminium, the
    appropriate district authorities will prepare a list of land
    displaced persons/substantially affected persons in
    association with the representative of National Aluminium         E
    which should indicate the khata nos. of the land, size of
    the plot and amount of compensation paid. There may be
    cases where a number of persons from the same family
    may hold a single khata and so also a number of persons
    from the same family may be the owner of a number of
                                                                      F
    plots having different khata nos. Keeping this in view, the
    list will further be refined freating each family as one unit
    and then the list should be made showing the details of
    khata no., size of the plot and total amount of
    compensation paid. The list so prepared shall b-e
    authenticated by the concerned Revenue authority of the           G
    Government as the authorized list of land displaced person/
    substantially affected person.

     3.2 A list of family members of the land displaced person/
     substantially affected person along with their age (date of      H
    1052        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A       birth) and qualification will be prepared by the above
        authorities. The family for the purpose would include as
        follows:

           a.    Self (i.e. the head of the family who is the owner of
                 the land)
B
           b.    Name of the spouse

           c.    Name of the dependant sons

           d.    Unmarried dependant daughter if there is no son.
c
                                                (Underlining is ours)

        4. Nominee of Land Displaced Person/substantially
        affected person. The head of the family shall indicate in
D       writing his/her nomination from among the family members
        so listed above whom he/she would desire to get the
        assistance offered by the company. The nomination made
        by the head of the family shall be duly authenticated by the
        concerned revenue authority of the Government. Generally,
E       the nomination once made will not be allowed to be
        changed except in special circumstances. But in no case,
        he/she will be allowed to change the nomination more than
        once. Wherever the State Government agrees, the change
        in nomination shall also be authenticated by the concerned
        Revenue Authority of the Government.
F
         7. Before examining the provisions contained in the
  scheme for compassionate appointment it will be appropriate
  to analyze the above provisions contained in the scheme for
  employ'ment under the category of displaced persons.
G Paragraph 2.1 (a) discloses that the said scheme by way of
  assistance/benefit provides for certain types of assistance one
  of which included appointment to a person nominated by the
  affected persons family subject to, however, vacancies being
  available and the nominee possessing required qualification/
H skill etc.
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR v. BHARAT CHANDRA 1053
   BEHERA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

     8. Under paragraph 2.4 there is a further condition to the      A
effect that the said benefit should be availed within a period of
one year from the date of commissioning of the unit and that
the said assistance would be confined to the unit concerned
and not to any other unit of the company.
                                                                     B
      9. Under paragraph 3.1, it is specifically stated that even
if there were number of persons in the same family holding a
single khata or number of plots having different khata numbers
such cases would be identified individually with specific
refer~nce to the khata number. Under paragraph 3.2 the details       C
about the family members of the land displaced person at the
time of acquisition should be prepared. The details gathered
under the said paragraph would disclose the head of the family,
who is the owner of the land, his spouse, his dependant sons,
unmarried dependant daughters if there is no son.
                                                                     D
     10. Under paragraph 4, the nominee of the land displaced
person is also ascertained. The said paragraph specifically
stipulates that the head of the family should indicate in writing
his/her nomination from among the family members whom he/
she would desire to get the assistance offered by the family.        E
Further such nomination offered by the head of the family was
also to be authenticated by the concerned Revenue Authority
of the Government. It is further stipulated that a nomination once
made will not be allowed to be changed except in special
circumstances and in no case he/she would be allowed to              F
change the nomination more than once. The change in
nomination should also be authenticated by the concerned
Revenue Authority of the Government.

      11. A conspectus consideration of the above provisions.
under the scheme makes it clear that in respect of a claim           G
under the category of a "land displaced persons'~, owned by a
family, it is for the head of the family to nominate one among
his family members who is his dependant, that such nomination
under special circumstances would be allowed to be changed
once, that such nominated person would be authenticated by           H
    1054         SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A the concerned Revenue Officer and befitting the qualification
  possessed by such a nominee, the appointment would be
  made. To be more precise, the provision for changing the
  nominee under special circumstances is far different from
  anyone seeking for appointment of an alternate candidate in
B the place of originally nominated person whose employment for
  no fault of NALCO ceased to survive due to unforeseen
  circumstances like death, etc. To put it differently, the provisions
  contained in the scheme does not provide for appointment of
  an alternate candidate in the place of originally nominated
c person whose appointment had already taken effect and for
  whatsoever reason the said appointment did not suNive later
  on.

       12. Apart from the above scheme providing for
  employment under the category of "land displaced persons'', the
D only other scope for anyone to claim appointment in NALCO
  is under the scheme of "employment on compassionate
  ground". Before us, under Annexure P-2, the said scheme dated
  02.04.1996 has been placed. A perusal of the said scheme
  disclose the provision in the form of guidelines, which are as
E under:

           (1)    The employment on compassionate ground will be
                  considered only on accidenUdeath cases which
                  comes under the category of "arising out of and in
F                 course of employment" as per the provision of
                  Workman's Compensation Act.

           (2)    The compassionate employment may be offered
                  after being satisfied that there is no other means
                  of livelihood of the family of the deceased
G                 employee.

           (3)    The compassionate employment can be confined
                  to the post in non-executive category at induction
                  level and against available vacancy.
H
 CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR v. BHARAT CHANDRA 1055
    BEHERA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

      (4)   The dependant wife/son/daughter of the deceased,        A
            may be considered for employment provided he/
            she meets the minimum requisite qualification-for
            the post as specified under the Recruitment Rules
            for non-executives.
                                                                    B
      (5)   Relaxation in age and experience may be
            considered, if required.       •

     13. The abovesaid guidelines relating to "employment on
compassionate ground" is conditional to the effect that such
employment would be considered only in the case of accidental       C
death arising out of and in the course of employment as
governed by the provisions of the Workman's Compensation
Act. It is also stipulated that such appointment might be offered
on being satisfied that there is no other means of livelihood for
the family of the deceased employee. The very vital condition       D
under the compassionate employment scheme is that such
employment can be claimed only by the dependant wife or son
or daughter of the deceased, who possess the minimum
requisite qualification for any non-executive post.
                                                                    E
      14. Keeping the above provisions contained in the two
schemes, namely, the one under the category "land displaced
persons" and the other by way of "compassionate
appointment", when we examine the claim of the first
respondent, we find that his very claim was under the land
                                                                    F
displaced persons scheme. When the said claim is considered,
indisputably his elder brother was offered appointment under
the said category and was also appointed on 22.10.1992 as
a Mazdoor. He continued to discharge his duties as a Mazdoor
till his death which occurred on 03.11.1996 in some ro-a{I
accident. Having regard to the factum of the appointment of the     G
first respondent's elder brother having fructified under the
scheme meant for "land displaced persons" as a validly
nominated person of the family, whose land was acquired by
NALCO, it will have to be held that the availability of the said
benefit had come to an end once and for all. Once the benefit       H
    1056      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A under the said scheme was duly availed, there would be no
  scope for anyone to approach NALCO for appointment for any
  other person under the said scheme in the absence of any
  provision providing for making such a claim.

8      15. It was not brought to the notice of this Court or for that
  matter before the Division Bench of the High Court any such
  provision under the scheme providing for any assistance/benefit
  under the category of "land displaced persons" entitling other
  members of the family to claim for subsequent employment on
  the ground that the nominee who was validly appointed earlier
C lost his life in an accident in the course of his appointment. In
  such a situation, the only scope was to make a claim under the
  scheme of "compassionate appointment". But, when the
  respondent did not fit in any of the beneficiaries, under the
  scheme of "compassionate appointment", the appellants rightly
D declined his claim.

         16. Once we steer clear of the said scheme provisions the
    only other aspect to be considered is the factum of appointment
    of two persons by name Sanjay Bhutia and Bijay Dwibedi
E   whose brother Alekh Bhutia and Sanjaya Dwibedi, who were
    earlier appointed under the very same scheme on 03.08.1985
    and 07.06.1986 respectively died in accidents and in whose
    place their brothers, namely, Sanjay Bhutia and Bijay Dwibedi
    came to be appointed in 1985 and 1995 respectively. In so far
F   as the said appointments are concerned, the same is not
    disputed by the appellants. In fact, in the additional affidavit, filed
    on behalf of the appellants in the High Court, it has been
    admitted by the appellants. It is, however, contended that such
    appointments were not in accordance with the scheme. It is
G   further stated therein that noticing such claims in the year 2004
    a scheme called "NALCO Employees Family Financial
    Assistance Rehabilitation Scheme" was brought into effect on
    02.06.2004 under which some financial assistance came to be
    provided to the family of the deceased brother of the
H   respondent.
 CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR v. BHARAT CHANDRA 105 7
    BEHERA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

     17. Having noted the above facts placed before the Court,         A
which have been heavily relied upon by the Division Bench to
grant the relief under the impugned order, ·we only state that
when once it was found that those two appointments were
irregular and not strictly in accordance with the scheme
providing for appointment in the case of land displaced                B
persons, it can only be stated that the same would be hit by
the principle of one illegality cannot be the basis for committing
another. In other words, two wrongs do not make one right. In
this context useful reference can be made to the decision of
this Court in Union of India and another vs. International             c
Trading Co .. and another reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437.
Paragraph 13 can be usefully referred, which reads as under:
     "13. What remains now to be considered, is the effect of
      permission granted to the thirty two vessels. As highlighted
      by learned counsel for the appellants, even if it is accepted    D
     that there was any improper permission, that may render
      such permissions vulnerable so far as the thirty two vessels
    . are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of the
      respondents. It is not necessary to deal with that aspect
      because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot         E
      claim that since something wrong has been done in
      another case direction should be given for doing another
      wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be
      perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no
      discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on       F
      the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in short
      "the Constitution") cannot be pressed into service in such
      cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes
      is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not
      countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both
      wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that      G
      a wrong has been committed in some other cases by
      introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents
      cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish
      strength of their case on some other basis and not by
      claiming negative equality."                                     H
     1058      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A       18. Therefore, the appointments of Sanjay Bhutia and Bijay
   Dwibedi though came to be made in the place of death of their
   brothers in accidents, in the year 1986 and 1995, the same
   cannot be quoted as valid precedent for the first respondent to
   claim employment. In other words, as there is no provision for
B claiming such appointment on the death of validly nominated
   person whose appointment already taken place under the
  scheme meant for "land displaced persons" and there being
  no provision for making any other appointment for the very same
  family under the said scheme, the very claim of the first
c respondent was not maintainable in law. The Division Bench,
  unfortunately, failed to appreciate the said position, instead
  proceeded to give a direction to the appellants to consider the
  claim of the first respondent for providing an appointment in the
  place of his deceased brother. The said order of the Division
D Bench cannot, therefore, be sustained. As noted by us under
  the "compassionate appointment" guidelines as well there is
  no scope for considering the claim of the first respondent,
  inasmuch as, the said guidelines provide for compassionate
  appointment only to the spouse or the dependant son or
  unmarried dependant daughter. Therefore, the first respondent
E had no right to claim for employment in NALCO either under
  the scheme for "land displaced persons" or by way of
  "compassionate appointment" pursuant to the death of his
  deceased elder brother Trilochan Behera.

F        19. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed. The order of the
    Division Bench dated 25.04.2008 in 0.J.C. No.369 of 1998 is
    set-aside. There will be no order as to costs.
    Kalpana K. Tripathy                               Appeal allowed