MGB GRAMIN BANKversusCHAKRAWARTI SINGH

                     [2013] 10 S.C.R. 1


                    MGB GRAMIN BANK                                A
                              v.
                   CHAKRAWARTI SINGH
              (Civil Appeal No. 6348 of 2013)
                      AUGUST 7, 2013
                                                                   8
      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]

    Service Law:
     Compassionate ·appointment - Death of employee of             C
appellant-Bank in harness - His son applied for
compassionate appointment - During pendency of the
application, new Scheme came into force providing that all
applications pending on the date of the Scheme to be
considered for grant of ex-gratia paymerit to the family instead
of compassionate appointment - CoBmpassionate                      D
appointment denied - Challenged - Courts below directing
the Bank to appoint - Held: Courts below not correct in
directing the appointment - Mere death of a. Government
employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim
compassionate appointment - Such employment cannot be              E
claimed as a matter of right as the same is not a vested right
- Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly
adhering to the mandatory requirements of Arts. 14 and 16
of the Constitution - An exception to this rule by providing
employment on· compassionate grounds has been carved out           F
in order to remove the financial constraints of the bereaved
family - The ameliorating relief should not be taken as
opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public
employment - Courts cannot confer benediction to make
appointments on sympathetic grounds when the regulation            G
framed in. its respect does not contemplate or cover such
appointment - Liberty to applicant to apply for consideration
under the new Scheme.
    Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
                        1                                          H
    2       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   (1994) 4 SCC 138; A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative
    Societies and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4504: 2004 (7) SCC 112;
    State Bank.of India and Anr. vs. Raj Kumar(2010) 11 SCC
    661 - relied on.
        Words and Phrases - 'vested' meaning of - Discussed.
B
        Bibi Sayeeda vs. State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 1936;
    Ku/dip Singh vs. Government, NCT Delhi AIR 2006 SC 2652
    2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 335; J. S.   Yadav vs. State of Uttar
    Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC 570: 2011 (5) S~R 460 - referred to.
c
         Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) p. 1563 ; Black's Law
    Dictionary (6thEdition) p. 1397, Webster's Comprehensive
    Dictionary (lnternationalEdition) p. 1397- referred to.
                         Case Law Reference:
D
        (1994) 4 sec 138              referred to       Para 6
        2004 (7) sec 112              relied on         Para   a
        AIR 1996 SC 516               referred to       Para 11
E       2011 (5 ) SCR 460             referred to       Para 11
        2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 335 referred to             Para 11
        c201 O) 11 sec 661            relied on         Para 12

F       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    6348 of 2013.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2010 of the High
  Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil
G Special Appeal (Writ) No. 798 of 2009.

        Anil Kumar Sangal, Siddharth Sangal for the Appellant.

        Vasudevan Raghavan for the Respondent.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered
H
    MGB GRAMIN BANK v. CHAKRAWARTI SINGH                     3


                           ORDER                                  A

      1. Leave granted.

    2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and order dated 27.1.2010 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.Civil      B
Special Appeal (Writ)No.798 of 2009 upholding the judgment
and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2009 passed
in Writ Petition No. 7869 of 2008 by which the respondent had
been directed to be appointed under a scheme for
 compassionate appointment.                                       C

      3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
fu~                                                               0


     A. Father of the respondent who was working as a Class
Ill employee with the appellant Bank died on 19.4.2006 while      D
in harness. The respondent applied for compassionate
appointment on 12.5.2006.

     B. During the pendency of the application filed by the
respondent, a new scheme dated 12.6.2006 came into force          E
with effect from 6.10.2006. Clause 14 thereof provides that all
applications pending on the date of commencement of the
scheme shall be considered for grant of ex-gratia payment to
the family instead of compassionate appointment.

     C. As the appointment on compassionate ground was            F
denied to the respondent, he preferred the writ petition before
the High Court and the learned Single Judge took the view that
as the cause of action had arisen prior to the commencement
of the new scheme, therefore, the case was to be considered
as per the then existing scheme i.e. the 1983 Scheme which        G
provided for compassionate appointment and not for grant of
ex-gratia payment. The Court directed the appellant not only to
consider the case of appointment of the respondent on
compassionate grounds but rather directed the appellant to
appoint him.                                                      H
        4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A             D. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order by
        filing the Special Appeal which has been dismissed vide
        impugned judgment and order dated 27.1.2010 concurring with
        the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.

            Hence this appeal.
B
            4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
              5. Every appointment to public office must be made by
        strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14
    c   and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing
        employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out
        in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved
•       family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a
        Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to
    0   claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority
        has to examine the financial condition of the family of the
        deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without
        providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the
        crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the
    E   family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must
        possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view
        that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate
        employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not
        a vested right.

    F        The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal
        interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian
        grounds.

            Such appointment should, therefore, be provided
    G   immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to
        keep such a case pending for years.

             6. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana & Ors.,
        (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court has considered the nature of the
        right which a dependant can claim while seeking employment
    H   on compassionate ground. The Court observed as under:-
    MGB GRAMIN BANK v. CHAKRAWARTI SINGH                       5


    "The would object of granting compassionate A
    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 Jess a post for post held by the
    deceased. .. ... The exception to the rule made in favour
    of the family of the deceased employee is in B
    consideration of the servies rendered by him and the
    legitimate expetations, and change in the staus and affairs
    of the family are suddenly upturned. .... The only ground
    which can justify compassionate employment is the
    penurious condition pf the deceased's family. The C
    consideratfon foir such employment is not a vested
    right. The object being to enable the family toi get over
    the financial crisis."       (Emphasis added)

     7. An 'amelic>rating relief should not be taken as opening
an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment.            D
Furthermore, an application made at a belated stage cannot
be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose
of making such appointment stands evaporated.

    8. The Court~1 and the Tribunals cannot confer benediction      E
impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments
on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in
respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such
appointments.

     9. In A. Ums•rani v Registrar, Co-operative Societies &        F
Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4504, while dealing with the issue, this Court
held that even the Supreme Court should not exercise the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 issuing a direction
to give compasskmate appointment in contravention of the
provisions of the Scheme/Rules etc., as the provisions have to      G
be complied with mandatorily and any appointment given or
ordered to be given in violation of the scheme would be illegal.

     10. The word 'vested' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary
{6th Edition) at page 1563, as 'vested', Fixed; accrued; settled;   H
     6        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.

A    absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights
     of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be
     defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are 'vested' when
     right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become
     property of some particular person or persons as present
B    interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent
     interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of
     existing laws, does not constitute vested rights.

          11. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International
     Edition). at page 1397, 'vested' is defined as Law held by a
C    tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law
     as a permanent right; vested interest. (Vide: Bibi Sayeeda v
     State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 516; and J.S. Yadav v State of
     Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC 570)

D         Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency
     and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person
     concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by
     operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been
     derived by a party, the policy decision/ scheme could be
E    changed. (Vide: Ku{dip Singh v Government, NCT Delhi AIR
     2006 SC 2SS2)
          12. A scheme containing an in pari materia clause, as is
     involved in this case was considered by this Court in State
     Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar (2010). 11 SCC 661;
F    Clause 14 of the said Scheme is verbatim to clause 14 of the
     scheme involved herein, which reads as under:

           "14. Date of effect of the scheme and disposal of
                pending applications:
G·
                 The Scheme will come into force with effect from
                 the date it is approved by the Board of Directors.
                 Applications pending under the Compasionate
                 Appointment Scheme as on the date on which this
                 new Scheme is approved by the Board will be dealt
H
                                                                        ,.




   MGB GRAMIN BANK v. CHAKRAWARTI SINGH                        7

            with in accordance with Scheme for pay~~~t~of ex-      A
            gratia lump sum amount provided they fulfill all the
            terms and conditions of this scheme."

      13. The Court considered various aspects of service
jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the
appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as B
a matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically
for appointment, rather it depends .on various other
circumstances i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the
family, etc., the application has to be considered in accordance
with the scheme. In case the Scheme does not create any legal C
right, a candidate cannot claim that his case is to be considered
as per the Scheme existing on the date the cause of action had
arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on the post. In State Bank of
India & Anr. (supra), this Court held that in such a situation, the
case under the new Scheme has to be considered.                     D

     14. In view of the above position, the reasoning given by
the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench is
not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appeal is allowed and
the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside.            E

      15. The respondent may apply for consideration of his case
under the new Scheme and the appellant shall consider his case
strictly in accordance with clause 14 of the said new Scheme
within a period of three months from the date of receiving of
application.                                                       F

    With these observations, appeal stands disposed of.

K.K.T.                                    Appeal disposed of.