THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.versusPREMLATA

                         [2021] 8 S.C.R. 597                              597


           THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                              A
                                  v.
                            PREMLATA
                   (Civil Appeal No. 6003 of 2021)
                        OCTOBER 05, 2021                                  B
            [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
       Dying-In-Harness Rules 1974 – r.5 – Compassionate
appointment – Suitable post – Respondent’s husband, a Class-IV
government servant died while serving as Messenger in Police Radio
                                                                          C
Department – She sought appointment on compassionate ground in
a Class-III post – Refused offer of appointment on the post of
Messenger – Filed writ petition which was dismissed by Single Judge
of High Court – Appeal, allowed by Division Bench – Held: Initially
the respondent applied for compassionate appointment on the post
of Assistant Operator in the Department – It was rightly not accepted     D
on the ground that she did not fulfill requisite eligibility criteria –
Then she applied for appointment on the post of Workshop Hand
wherein her case was considered, however, she failed in physical
test examination – It was thereafter that she was offered appointment
as Messenger which was equivalent to the post held by the deceased
                                                                          E
employee – Division Bench misinterpreted r.5 in holding that ‘suitable
post’ thereunder would mean any post suitable to the qualification
of the candidate and the appointment on compassionate ground is
to be offered considering the educational qualification of the
dependent – Such interpretation would defeat the object of
appointment on compassionate ground which is to enable the family         F
to tide over the sudden crisis – Object is not to give such family a
post much less a post held by the deceased – Suitable post has to be
considered, considering status/post held by the deceased employee
– Appellants justified in offering the appointment to the respondent
on the post of Messenger – Impugned order set aside – Order passed
                                                                          G
by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition restored – Service
Law.
     Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Object and
purpose of – Discussed.
                                                                          H
                                 597
598           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A            Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Held:
      Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of
      appointment in the public services – It is a concession and not a
      right.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
B           HELD : 1.1 As per the law laid down by Supreme 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
C     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. 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
D     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 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 such
      family a post much less a post held by the deceased. [Paras 9,
      10][606-E-F; 608-F-H; 609-A-B]

F           1.2 The Division Bench of the High Court in the present
      case has interpreted Rule 5 of Dying-In-Harness 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
G     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
H     deceased employee and the suitability of the post is required to
          THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. PREMLATA                             599


be considered vis a vis the post held by the deceased employee,              A
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
                                                                             B
Class-II or Class-I 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   C
post. The aforesaid shall be contrary to the object and purpose of
grant of appointment on compassionate ground which is to enable
the family to tide over the sudden crisis on the death of the bread
earner. [Para 10.2][609-C-G]
      1.3 In the present case initially the respondent applied for           D
appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant
Operator in Police Radio Department. The same was not accepted
by the Department and rightly not accepted on the ground that
she was not fulfilling requisite eligibility criteria for the post of
Assistant Operator. Thereafter the respondent again applied for
appointment on the compassionate ground on the post of                       E
Workshop Hand. The case of the respondent was considered,
however, she failed in the physical test examination, which was
required as per the relevant recruitment rules of 2005. Therefore,
thereafter she was offered appointment on compassionate ground
as Messenger which was equivalent to the post held by the                    F
deceased employee. Therefore appellants were justified in offering
the appointment to the respondent on the post of Messenger.
However, the respondent refused the appointment on such post.
The Division Bench of the High Court has misinterpreted and
misconstrued Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 and in observing and
holding that the ‘suitable post’ under Rule 5 of the Dying -In -             G
Harness Rules 1974 would mean any post suitable to the
qualification of the candidate and the appointment on
compassionate ground is to be offered considering the educational
qualification of the dependent. Such an interpretation would defeat
the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.               H
600            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A     The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench
      of the High Court is quashed and set aside. Consequently the
      writ petition preferred by the respondent before the learned Single
      Judge being Writ Petition No.16009 of 2018 stands dismissed
      and the order passed by the Single Judge dated 31.07.2018
      dismissing the writ stands restored. No costs. [Paras 10.3, 11
B
      and 12][609-H; 610-A-F]
             Phoolwati (Smt) vs Union Of India and Others (1991)
             Supp 2 SCC 689: (1991) AIR 469; Director of
             Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. vs. V. Somashree
             Decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5122
C            of 2021; State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi
             Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653 : [2019] 2 SCR
             432 – relied on.
             N.C.Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2020)
             7 SCC 617: [2020] 3 SCR 1177; Govind Prakash Verma
D            vs. LIC reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 – referred to.
                              Case Law Reference
      [2020] 3 SCR 1177               referred to            Para 8
      [2019] 2 SCR 432                relied on              Para 9.1
E
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6003 of
      2021
             From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2018 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal (Defective) No.620 of 2018.
F            Ms. Ruchira Goel, Amol Chitravanshi, Advs. for the Appellants.
            Shashank Singh, Prashant Mishra, Mohd. Asad Khan, Adil
      Sharfuddin, Advs. for the Respondent.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G            M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
      Allahabad in Special Appeal Defective (SAD) No.620 of 2018, by which
      the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and
H
           THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. PREMLATA                                 601
                        [M. R. SHAH, J.]

quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.07.2018 passed              A
by the learned Single Judge and consequently has directed the appellants
– original respondents to consider the candidature of the respondent
herein – original appellant for appointment on compassionate ground in
Grade-III service, the State of U.P. has preferred the present appeal.
       2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-      B
       2.1 That the deceased employee at the time of his death was
posted and serving as Messenger in Police Radio Department of Uttar
Pradesh (Class-IV) died on 07.11.2014. The respondent herein being
widow of the deceased – government servant submitted an application
dated 05.12.2014 for appointment on the post of Assistant Operator in             C
Police Radio Department on compassionate ground which was rejected
on the ground that she is not fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria for
the said post. That thereafter the respondent submitted another application
before the U.P. Police Radio Headquarter, Lucknow for appointment on
the post of Workshop Hand on compassionate ground. However as she
failed to clear the physical fitness examination conducted on 28.01.2018          D
for the selection of Workshop employee, her application for appointment
as Workshop employee on compassionate ground came to be rejected.
Due to unsuccessful in the physical eligibility test on the post of Workshop
Hand/Workshop employee, vide letter dated 23.02.2018 of the Police
Radio Headquarter, U.P., Lucknow, the respondent herein was offered               E
the post below the rank of Workshop Hand i.e. Messenger in Radio
Department. Instead of accepting the said post the respondent filed the
writ petition before the High Court claiming the appointment on the post
of Workshop Hand (Karmshala Karmchari) in Police Radio Department
under the provisions of Dying-In-Harness Rules 1974 (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules 1974) on compassionate ground and to direct              F
the appellants to appoint her on the post of Workshop Hand (Karmshala
Karmchari) or the post suitable for her in similar cadre.
       2.2 By the judgment and order dated 31.07.2018, learned Single
Judge of the High Court dismissed the said writ petition on the ground
that as the deceased employee was Class-IV employee and she has                   G
also been offered appointment on a Class-IV post, she cannot claim the
appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Workshop Hand or
on any other suitable Class-III post.

                                                                                  H
602             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A            2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
      passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent herein preferred the
      appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and by the impugned
      judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside
      the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has allowed the appeal
      and has directed the appellants to consider the candidature of the
B
      respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground in Grade-
      III service and same be accorded to her if she otherwise does not suffer
      any ineligibility. By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench
      of the High Court has observed that a bare perusal of Rule 5 of the
      Rules 1974 makes it crystal clear that appointment under Rule 5 is required
C     to be given on a “suitable post” and the term ‘suitable’ in Rule 5 pertains
      to suitability of the person who desires for appointment and it has nothing
      to do with the post held by the deceased government servant. The Division
      Bench also observed that the suitability of the aspirant is required to be
      assessed on the basis of the educational qualification and other eligibilities
      so possessed by such person. The Division Bench noted that in the case
D
      in hand, respondent is having the qualification of Bachelors Degree in
      Arts as well as Bachelors Degree in Education and therefore qualified
      for appointment on a post in Grade-III.
            3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the State of
E     U.P. and others have preferred the present appeal.
              4. Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
      the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has
      misinterpreted the Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 by observing that the
F     respondent shall be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on
      ‘suitable post’ considering the educational qualification and irrespective
      of the fact that the deceased employee was working on Class-IV post.
      It is submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has not properly
      appreciated the fact that the appellant sought appointment on
G     compassionate ground which cannot be equated with regular post/regular
      recruitment.
            4.1 It is submitted that ‘suitable post’ is required to be linked to
      the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.
            4.2 It is submitted that the object and purpose of providing the
H     appointment on compassionate ground is to meet out the difficulties
          THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. PREMLATA                              603
                       [M. R. SHAH, J.]

created on account of sudden death of the sole bread earner and cannot        A
be equated with the regular recruitment/appointment. It is further
submitted that ‘suitable post’ is to be considered considering the post
held by deceased employee and it cannot be a higher post.
      4.3 It is submitted that ‘suitable post’ mentioned in Rule 5 of Rules
1974 has to be construed considering the educational qualification of         B
dependent vis-à-vis the post held by the deceased employee.
      4.4 It is submitted that in the present case earlier the respondent
applied for the post of Sub-Inspector for which the respondent was not
possessing the requisite qualification of ITI. It is submitted that even
subsequently when she applied for the appointment on compassionate            C
ground on the post of Workshop Hand she did not clear the physical
examination test which was required to be cleared as per Uttar Pradesh
Radio Adhinasth Sewa Second Amendment Niyamawali, 2005. It is
submitted that therefore the respondent was offered next lower post i.e.
Messenger, which the respondent refused to accept.
                                                                              D
       4.5 It is submitted that even as per the Circular dated 24.11.2015,
only one opportunity was required to be given for appointment on any
post to the dependent of the deceased. It is submitted that in the present
case, the respondent failed to avail the opportunity twice.
       4.6 It is submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has      E
erred in holding that the ‘suitable post’ under Rule 5 of the Rules 1974,
would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidates.
      4.7 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal.
      5. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Shashank            F
Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division
Bench of the High Court has rightly interpreted Rule 5 of the Rules
1974, would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate.
      5.1 It is submitted that in the present case the Division Bench of      G
the High Court has not directed to appoint the respondent as Workshop
Hand, but has directed to consider the case on any other suitable post as
Grade-III looking to the qualification of the respondent.
      5.2 It is vehemently submitted that as such Circular dated
24.11.2015, issued by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, granting only one               H
604             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A     opportunity for appointment on compassionate ground on any post to the
      dependent of the deceased, and in case such dependent fails to avail the
      opportunity, such person shall be offered appointment on any other lower
      rank within a period of three months shall not be applicable to the facts
      of the case on hand as the respondent applied prior to the said circular.
      It is submitted that therefore the conditions in the said circular in relation
B
      to grant of one opportunity shall not be applicable to the respondent
      herein.
             5.3 It is further submitted that while determining ‘suitability’ under
      the provisions of Rules 1974, Rule 5 of the said rules laying down
      qualification requirements ought to be read harmoniously with Rule 8 of
C     the Rules 1974 that the candidate ought to be able to maintain minimum
      standards of work and efficiency.
              5.4 It is submitted that a hyper-technical approach ought not to be
      adopted in cases of compassionate appointments. It is submitted that so
      far as the compassionate appointments are concerned such appointments
D     are exempted from the requirements of ordinary/normal recruitment
      procedure.
             5.5 It is further submitted that there is no bar for appointment of a
      dependent at a higher post than was held by the deceased. It is submitted
      that Rule 5 of Rules 1974 provides that the appellant may be given a
E     suitable employment in government service on a post except the post
      within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission in
      relaxation of he normal recruitment rules.
             5.6 It is submitted that even the respondent ought not to be denied
      the appointment as Workshop Hand on the ground that the respondent
F     failed to pass the physical test. It is submitted that the suitability of a
      post may be determined on the basis of educational qualification and/or
      other criteria. It is submitted that it is true that as per the provisions of
      law once a post is accepted on account of compassionate appointment,
      no right may be claimed to further or later apply for a higher post. It is
G     submitted that however the facts in the present case are peculiar. The
      specialized post of Workshop Hand requires, in addition to requisite
      educational qualification, a physical test also to be passed. It is submitted
      that the respondent’s failure to pass the physical test makes her ineligible
      for this particular post. However, the post of Messenger being offered is
      disproportionate to her educational qualifications. Therefore, the
H     respondent may be considered for an alternate or suitable post within
           THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. PREMLATA                                  605
                        [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Grade-III wherein such specific recruitment of the physical test may               A
not be applicable as the down gradation of the post would render her
educational qualification futile.
       5.7 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision
of this court in case of Phoolwati (Smt) vs. Union of India and Others
reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689, it is requested to dismiss the present          B
appeal.
       6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
        7. The respondent’s husband was serving as Messenger (Class-
IV/Grade-IV post) in Police Radio Department. He died on 07.11.2014.
The respondent-widow of the deceased – government servant submitted                C
an application on 05.02.2014 for appointment on the post of Assistant
Operator which was not considered as she was not fulfilling the requisite
eligibility criteria required for the post of Assistant Operator. That
thereafter she made an application for the appointment on compassionate
ground on the post of Workshop Hand which is a Grade-III post on                   D
19.02.2015. She was granted the opportunity for appointment on said
post, however, she could not pass the physical eligibility test conducted
for the said post and thereby as a result of her failure in physical eligibility
test, she could not be granted the appointment on the post of Workshop
Hand on compassionate ground. Still by order dated 23.02.2018, the
respondent was offered the post below the rank of Workshop Hand i.e.               E
Messenger in Radio Department, which she refused and the respondent
insisted that she must be appointed on the compassionate ground on the
post of Workshop Hand or equivalent post of Grade-III looking to her
educational qualification. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition. However, the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and                 F
order has directed to consider the case of the respondent for appointment
on compassionate ground on the post of Workshop Hand or any equivalent
post in Grade-III looking to her qualification and on interpretation of
Rule 5 that the ‘suitable post’ under Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness
Rules 1974 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the
candidate. The aforesaid is the subject matter of appeal before this court.        G
       8. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the
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 Civil Appeal No.5122 of 2021 in the
case of the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. vs. V. Somashree,           H
606                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A     had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment
      on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this court in
      N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2020) 7
      SCC 617, this Court has summarized the principle governing the grant of
      appointment on compassionate ground as under:-
B           (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
C                    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;
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.
            9. As per the law laid down by this court in catena of decisions on
      the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government
E
      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.
F
            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
G     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
H           appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar
    THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. PREMLATA                                607
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of                A
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
                                                                          B
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
   merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration        C
   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         D
   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           E
   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     F
   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       G
   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 non-manual
   and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered
   on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family,      H
608            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A              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
B
               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
C              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.”
D           “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
E           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
F           earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of
            in that case.”
             10. 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
G     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
      employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be
H     eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate
           THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. PREMLATA                                   609
                        [M. R. SHAH, J.]

employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.             A
The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the
deceased.
       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                B
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’
                                                                                    C
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               D
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
                                                                                    E
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 Class-I 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                   F
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
                                                                                    G
death of the bread earner. As observed above, appointment 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 In the present case as observed hereinabove initially the
respondent applied for appointment on compassionate ground on the                   H
610             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A     post of Assistant Operator in Police Radio Department. The same was
      not accepted by the Department and rightly not accepted on the ground
      that she was not fulfilling requisite eligibility criteria for the post of
      Assistant Operator. Thereafter the respondent again applied for
      appointment on the compassionate ground on the post of Workshop Hand.
      The case of the respondent was considered, however, she failed in the
B
      physical test examination, which was required as per the relevant
      recruitment rules of 2005. Therefore, thereafter she was offered
      appointment on compassionate ground as Messenger which was
      equivalent to the post held by the deceased employee. Therefore
      appellants were justified in offering the appointment to the respondent
C     on the post of Messenger. However, the respondent refused the
      appointment on such post.
             11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      Division Bench of the High Court has misinterpreted and misconstrued
      Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 and in observing and holding that the ‘suitable
D     post’ under Rule 5 of the Dying-In-Harness Rules 1974 would mean
      any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate and the appointment
      on compassionate ground is to be offered considering the educational
      qualification of the dependent. As observed hereinabove such an
      interpretation would defeat the object and purpose of appointment on
      compassionate ground.
E
            12. In view of the above for the reasons stated above, present
      appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
      Division Bench of the High Court dated 14.09.2018 in Special Appeal
      Defective (SAD) No.620 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.
      Consequently the writ petition preferred by the respondent before the
F     learned Single Judge being Writ Petition No.16009 of 2018 stands
      dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
      31.07.2018 dismissing the writ stands restored. No costs.

      Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal allowed.
G




H