UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusSHASHANK GOSWAMI & ANR.

                          [2012] 6 S.C.R. 98


A                     UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
                                   v.
                   SHASHANK GOSWAMI & ANR.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 6224 of 2008)
                            MAY 23, 2012
B
          [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

         Service Law - Appointment - Compassionate
    appointment - Held: Cannot be claimed as a matter of right -
C   Appointment on compassionate ground is not another source
    of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of
    taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee
    while in service leaving his family without any means of
    livelihood - Applicant cannot claim appointment in a
D   particular class/group of post - Appointments on
    compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with
    the rules, regulations or administrative instructions faking into
    consideration the financial condition of the family of the
    deceased - On facts, the Compassionate Scheme provided
E   that in case the family gets more than Rs. 3 lakhs, the
    dependent of the deceased would not be eligible for
    employment on compassionate ground - Retiral/terminal
    benefits have been received by the family exceeding Rs.3
    lakhs, thus, respondent not eligible to be considered for the
F   Group 'C' post.

       Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of
  India & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 289; Punjab National Bank &
  Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265: 2004 (3 )
  Suppl. SCR 597; General Manager (O&PB) & Ors. v. Kunti
G Tiwari & Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 271; Mumtaz Yunus Mu/ani (Smt.)
  v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 384: 2008 (5)
  SCR 241- referred to.



H                                  98
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. SHASHANK GOSWAMI &                   99
                    ANR.
                      Case Law Reference:                           A
  (2005) 1o sec 289            Referred to.           Para 10
  2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 597 Referred to.                Para 11
  (2004) 1 sec 211             Referred to.           Para 11
                                                                    B
  2008 (5) SCR 241             Referred to.           Para 12

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6224 of 2008.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.2006 of the High         C
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
28535 of 2006.

     S.P. Singh, Sushma Suri, B. Sunita Rao, D.S. Mahara for
the Appellants.                                                     D

    The Order of the Court was delivered

                            ORDER

     1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned         E
judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.28535 of 2006
directing the appellants herein to reconsider application of
respondent no.1 on compassionate grounds.

     2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
                                                                    F
that one Anand Kishore Gautam working as Senior Accountant
in the office of the Accountant General, Allahabad died on
19.3.2001 in harness, leaving behind two sons aged about-20
and 19 years and a daughter, aged about 17 years and Smt.
Rashmi Gautam, ?his widow.                                          G

    3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for appointment
on compassionate grounds, which came to be rejected by the
appellants on 28.1.2004 in view of the prevailing scheme for
appointments on compassionate grounds. Under the scheme-,           H
    100      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A   vacancies could be filled up on compassionate grounds only
    upto 5% of the cadre strength falling under direct recruitment
    quota during a year in Group 'C ' and 'D ' posts.

         The scheme further lays down that the total income of the
    family from all sources including terminal benefits after death,
8
    excluding G.P.F., should be taken into consideration. So far as
    the post of Group 'C' is concerned, the scheme provides that
    in case the family gets more than Rs.3 lakhs, the dependent of
    the deceased would not be eligible for employment on
    compassionate ground.
c
        4. Respondent No.1· could not be offered appointment on
   the ground that excluding G.P.F. amount, his family had received
   a sum of Rs.4,40,908/- in addition to family pension of
   Rs.3, 100/- per month granted to Mrs. Rash mi Gautam. She was
O entitled to get the said family pension at least for seven years
 · and thereafter, the family pension would be Rs.1,860/- per
   month plus ?other reliefs admissible on pension

       5. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 challenged the order dated
E 28.1.2004 rejecting his claim, before Central Administrative
  Tribunal, Allahabad vide Original Application No. 728 of 2004,
  wherein the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 7.12.2005
  quashed the order dated 28.1.2004 and directed the appellants
  herein to reconsider the case of respondent No.1.

F        6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants
    preferred CMWP No.28535 of 2006 before the High Court
    which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this
    appeal.

G       7. We have heard Mr. S.P. Singh, learned senior counsel
    appearing for the appellants.

        In spite of notice, the respondents did not enter
    appearance.

H
 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. SHASHANK GOSWAMI & 101
                     ANR.

     The appeal is pending for the last four years before this A
 Court.

      8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
 has submitted that the appellants had to consider the
 applications for employment on compassionate grounds only B
 within the parameters and terms and conditions incorporated
 in the scheme laid down for toot purpose. The scheme makes
 a person ineligible for the post in Group 'C', in case, on the
 ?death of the incumbent on the post, the family gets retiral
 benefits/terminal benefits exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs.              c
       9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition
 that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is
 based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on
 the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be
 upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution D
 of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and
 permissibl~ on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family
 of such employee who has served the State and dies while in
 service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be
 claimed as a matter of right. As a rule public service E
 appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open
 invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on
 compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but
 merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into
  consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in F
  service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In
  such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden
 financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus,
  applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group
 of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be G
 made in accordance with the rules, regulations or
 administrative instructions taking into consideration the
 financial condition of the family of the deceased.

      10. This Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance
1 Corporation of India & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 289 while dealing H
     102        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 6 S.C.R.


 A   with a similar issue i.e. whether payment of terminal/retiral
     benefits to the family can be taken into consideration, held as
     under:

           "'In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental
            authorities ..... to take into consideration the amount which
 B
           was being paid as family pension to the widow of the
            deceased ..... and other amounts paid on account of
            terminal benefits under the Rules ....... Therefore,
            compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the
            ground that any member of the family received the amount
 c          admissible under the Rules."

          11. This Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. V. Ashwini
     Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265, placing reliance upon the
     earlier judgment in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. V. Kunti
 D   Tiwari & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 271, held that compassionate
     appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules,
     Regulations or administrative instructions taking into
     consideration the financial condition of the family of the
     deceased. Whereas the scheme provides that in case the
 E   family of the deceased gets the retrial/ terminal benefits
     exceeding a particular ceiling, the dependant of such dee.eased
     employee, would not be eligible for compassionate
     appointment.

           12. In Mumtaz YunusMulani (Smt.) v. State of
 F   Maharashtra & Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 384, this Court examined
     the scope of employment on compassionate ground in a similar
     scheme making the dependant of an employee ineligible for '
     the post in case the family receives terminal/ retiral benefits
     above the sealing limit and held that the judgment in Govind
'G   Prakash (supra) had been decided without considering earlier
     judgments which were binding on the Bench. The Court further
     held that that the appointment has to be made considering the
     terms of the scheme and in case the scheme lays down a
     criterion that if the family of the deceased employee gets a
 H   particular amount as retiral/terminal benefits, dependent of the
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. SHASHANK GOSWAMI & 103
                    ANR.
deceased employee would not be eligible for employment on             A
compassionate grounds.

     13. In the instant case, office of the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, New Delhi issued a Circular dated 19.2.2003
explaining the scope of such appointments. Relevant part of the
                                                                      8
same reads as under:

     "With a view to bring uniformity in our offices regarding
     parameters for compassionate appointment of a family
     member in the case of death of a government servant in
     harness, it has been decided that the total income of the        C
     family from all sources including terminal benefits after
     death, excluding G.P .F., should be taken into account. If the
     resultant computation works out to a figure less than the
     parameters given below such cases can be considered
     for compassionate appointment subject to fulfilment of all       D
     other conditions. The limits are given below:

                   Group 'B' Rs. Five lakhs

                   Group 'C' Rs. Three lakhs
                                                                      E
                   Group 'D' Rs. Two lakhs."



    14. The case of the respondent was rejected by the
appellants in view of the fact that the family of the deceased        F
Anand Kishore Gautam had been given the following terminal
benefit excluding the G.P.F.

     1. DCRG                    Rs.2,48,248.00
                                                                      G
     2. Leave Encashment       _Rs.88,660.00

     3. CGEIS                   Rs.44,000.00

     4. OLIS                    Rs.60,000.00
                                                                      H
     Total:                      Rs.4,40,908.00
    104       SUPRl:ME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 6 S.C.R.


A       In addition to above, family pension @ 3100/- per month
    has been authorised to Smt. Rashmi Gautam for a period of 7
    years and thereafter @ 1860/- per month plus admissible relief
    on pension.

B         15. In view of the fact that, in the instant case the retiral/
    terminal benefits have been received by the family exceeding
    Rs.3 lakhs, respondent No.1 is not eligible to be considered
    for the Group 'C' post.

       16. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is
C allowed. The impugned judgments/orders stand set aside.

    N.J.                                             Appeal allowed.