BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 11-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 630 
BHAWANL PRASAD SONKAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5101 of 2005) 
MARCH 11, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
c 
Grant of compassionate appointment - Object of - Held: 
Compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian 
grounds and cannot be claimed as a matter of right -
Ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of 
open invitation of applications and comparative merit -
0 Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general 
rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, 
by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the 
character of the service rules - The scheme has to be strictly 
construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to 
E achieve. 
Compassionate appointment - Claim for - Guidelines 
governing the appointment -
Held: Request for 
compassionate employment is to be considered strictly in 
accordance with the governing scheme - Application for 
F compassionate employment must be preferred without undue 
delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period 
of time - Appointment on compassionate ground is to meet 
the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the 
death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in 
G service - It is permissible only to one of the dependants of 
the deceased/incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse, 
son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such 
appointments should be only to the lowest category that is 
Class Ill and IV posts - On facts, appellant's father was 
H 
630 
• 
• 
BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & 631 
ORS. 
declared as de-categorized employee, not offered alternative A 
employment and was made to retire from services on 
30.08.1999 on recommendation by the Standing Committee 
- In terms of Circular dated 22.09.1995 which contemplates 
compassionate employment for the wards of those employees 
who have been medically de-categorized, and have retired, 
B 
without being offered an alternative suitable job, the appellant 
shall be entitled to employment on compassionate ground. 
Appellant's father-Guard Mail/Express in the 
Railways, was declared a de-categorized employee and C 
on recommendation by the Standing Committee was 
retired from service by the order dated 30th August, 1999 
without offering him any alternate employment as 
stipulated in the service rules. Appellant's father filed 
applications before the Railway official seeking 
compassionate appointment for his son as a Class IV D 
employee but the same were rejected. The appellant filed 
an application before the Tribunal which was also 
dismissed. The appellant then filed a writ petition seeking 
compassionate appointment. The High Court dismissed 
the petition on the ground that the employee did not fulfil E 
the conditions envisaged in the Railway Board Circular 
dated 29th November, 2001. Therefore, the appellant filed 
the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The compassionate employment is given 
solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to 
provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide 
over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed 
F 
as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent G 
is inimical to the Constitutional scheme, and ordinarily 
public employment must be strictly on the basis of open 
invitation of applications and comparative merit, in 
consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. 
Nevertheless, 
the 
concept 
of compassionate 
appointment has been recognized as an exception to the 
general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain 
exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which 
B partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, 
it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as 
the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the 
employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be 
strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it 
c seeks to achieve. [Para 15] [640-B-E] 
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 
(1994) 4 SCC 138; Steel Authority of India Limited vs. 
Madhusudan Das and Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 560; V. 
Sivamurthy vs. State of Andhra and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 730 
D - referred to. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1.2 While considering a claim for employment on 
compassionate ground, the following 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.