FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. & ORSversusANUSREE K.B.

                       [2022] 7 S.C.R. 267                            267


FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. & ORS.                      A
                                v.
                         ANUSREE K.B.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 6958 of 2022)
                      SEPTEMBER 30, 2022                              B
         [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
      Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Application for,
rejected – Writ petition – High Court directed appellants to re-
consider appointment on compassionate grounds – Propriety – Held:
                                                                      C
Not proper – The whole object of granting compassionate
employment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the
sudden crisis – On facts, application for compassionate appointment
was tendered 14 years after death of the employee concerned –
Further, 24 years have lapsed since death of the employee – If such
compassionate appointment is made now and/or after a period of        D
14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for
which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.
     Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Object and
purpose of – Principles governing grant of appointments on
compassionate ground – Discussed.                                     E
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD:1.1. Compassionate appointment is an exception to
the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in
favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and
leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood,     F
and 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         G
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 such family a post much less a
post held by the deceased. [Para 9][274-F-H]

                                                                      H
                               267
268            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A          1.2. Considering the object and purpose for which the
      appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the
      respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on
      compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the
      year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the
B     deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the
      appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment
      is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall
      be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on
      compassionate ground is provided. [Para 9.1][275-A-C]
C           Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. v.
            V. Somyashree (2021) SCC Online SC 704 and State of
            Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3
            SCC 653 : [2019] 2 SCR 432 – relied on.

D           N. C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC
            617 : [2020] 3 SCR 1177 and Govind Prakash Verma
            v. LIC (2005) 10 SCC 289 – referred to.

                            Case Law Reference

E     [2020] 3 SCR 1177               referred to         Para 3

      [2019] 2 SCR 432                relied on           Para 8.1

      (2005) 10 SCC 289               referred to         Para 8.1

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6958
F     of 2022.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2022 of the High Court
      of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No.543 of 2021.

            Siddhartha Jha, Ms. Pracheta Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz,
G     Advs. for the Appellants.

           Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv. for the
      Respondent.

H
FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. & ORS.                               269
                  v. ANUSREE K.B.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               A
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 543 of 2021 by which the Division Bench
                                                                               B
of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal preferred by the
appellants and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge directing the appellants to consider the case of the
respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground, the original
appellants – Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. have
preferred the present appeal.                                                  C
      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 helper
with the appellant No. 1 and expired while on duty on 19.04.1995. At the
time of death of the employee, the wife of the deceased employee was
serving and therefore, was not eligible for appointment on compassionate       D
ground considering the scheme for employment of dependents of the
employees dying in harness. After a period of 14 years, after the death
of the deceased employee, the respondent daughter of the deceased
employee made a representation seeking appointment on compassionate
basis. That her application for compassionate appointment was rejected         E
on 12.02.2018 on the grounds that her name was not in the list of dependents
submitted by the deceased employee and that the policy was to give
employment to widow or son or unmarried daughter of the deceased
employee.
      2.2 The rejection of the application for compassionate appointment       F
was the subject matter of writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
Vide order dated 13.11.2019, the learned Single Judge disposed of the
writ petition with the directions to the appellants to reconsider the
application of the respondent in accordance with Clause 1 of the Scheme.
       2.3 That on 12.12.2019, after reconsideration, the appellants again     G
rejected the application of the respondent for appointment on
compassionate ground on the grounds that it did not meet the primary
test of scheme that the deceased employee should be the “sole bread
winner of his family”, since his wife was gainfully employed with the
Kerala State Health Services Department at the time of his death and
                                                                               H
270             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     also on the ground that 24 years have lapsed since the date of death of
      the deceased employee.
            2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated
      13.11.2019, rejecting the application of the respondent for appointment
      on compassionate ground, the respondent filed a writ petition before the
B     High Court.
             2.5 By the judgment and order dated 22.01.2021, the learned Single
      Judge allowed the said writ petition and directed the appellants to reconsider
      the respondent’s claim strictly in terms of the observations and directions
      passed in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2019 passed
C     in Writ Petition No. 11234 of 2018 (earlier round of litigation).
             2.6 The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
      was the subject matter of appeal before the Division Bench of the High
      Court by way of present writ appeal. By the impugned judgment and
      order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ
D     appeal, which has given rise to the present appeal before this Court.
             3. Shri Siddharth Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
      of the case and, more particularly, when the application for appointment
      on compassionate ground was made by the respondent – daughter of
E     the deceased employee after a period of 14 years from the death of the
      deceased employee, the Hon’ble High Court ought not to have directed
      the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment
      on compassionate ground. It is submitted that to reconsider the case of
      the respondent now for appointment on compassionate ground after a
      period of 24 years would be against the object and purpose of appointment
F     on compassionate ground namely to meet out the difficulties created on
      account of sudden death of the sole bread earner. Reliance is placed on
      the decision of this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in
      Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704
      and another decision of this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh Vs.
G     State 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
FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. & ORS.                               271
            v. ANUSREE K.B. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       4.1 It is submitted that at the relevant time when the deceased         A
employee died in the year 1995, the respondent was minor. It is submitted
that on attaining the age of majority, the respondent daughter made an
application for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted
that initially when the application of the respondent for appointment on
compassionate ground was rejected, the same was not on the ground
                                                                               B
subsequently mentioned while passing the order dated 13.11.2019 namely
delay. It is submitted that in the year 2018, even the respondent was
called for the interview, however, at that time, the appointment was denied
on the ground that in the dependent’s list, the name of the respondent is
not mentioned, which was found to be factually incorrect. It is submitted
that therefore, the respondent cannot be denied the appointment on             C
compassionate ground on the ground of delay. Therefore, it is prayed not
to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court.
      5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
       6. The respondent’s father was serving as a loading helper. He          D
died in the year 1995. At the relevant time, the widow of the deceased
employee – mother of the respondent was serving in the Kerala State
Health Services Department and, therefore, as such was not eligible
and/or entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. After a period
of approximately 14 years, the respondent being a daughter of the deceased     E
employee submitted an application for appointment on compassionate
ground, which has been rejected by the appellants. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that in the meantime, the respondent got married in
the year 2013. It is also required to be noted that by the time, the learned
Single Judge passed the order, which has been confirmed by the Division
Bench, more than 24 years have passed after the death of the deceased          F
employee. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is required
to be considered whether still the respondent shall be entitled to
appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who
died in the year 1995?
       7. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the      G
law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the
deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In
the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in
Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704,
had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment      H
272                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court in
      N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Court
      has summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on
      compassionate ground as under:-
            (i)      that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the
B                    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
C                    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;

D           (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. 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
E
      mandated under Articles 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.
             8.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs.
F
      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 the decision of this Court in the
      case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC
      289, in paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:-
G           “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
H           Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. & ORS.                             273
            v. ANUSREE K.B. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

    Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles which have been               A
    laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
    State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] 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)
                                                                             B
    4 SCC 138], 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 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         C
       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          D
       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           E
       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               F
       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      G
       posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non- manual
       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            H
274            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A              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
B
               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,
C              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 [(2008) 11 SCC 384] has adopted
            the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a
D           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
E           that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this
            Court have been taken note of in that case.”
             9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
      decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule
      of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents
F     of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and
      without any means of livelihood, and 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
G     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 such family a post much less a post held by the
      deceased.

H
FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. & ORS.                              275
            v. ANUSREE K.B. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       9.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid          A
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the
observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which
the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent
shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the
death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years
                                                                              B
from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be
entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an
appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same
shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on
compassionate ground is provided.
       9.2 Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge as         C
well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a serious
error in directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent
for appointment on compassionate ground. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
      10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the          D
present appeal succeeds. The judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court are hereby
quashed and set aside.
       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
                                                                              E

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                        Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Preetam Bharti, LCRA)



                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H