CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR & OTHERS versus BHARAT CHANDRA BEHERA & ANOTHER

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 12-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 16 S.C.R. 1045 
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR & OTHERS 
v. 
BHARAT CHANDRA BEHERA & ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 10996 of 2013) 
DECEMBER 12, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Appointment - Under scheme of employer for assistance 
to displaced persons whose land was acquired for setting up 
A 
B 
c 
its establishment - After death of the appointee, his brother 
seeking appointment - High Court directing the employer to 
appoint the brother of the deceased employee - On appeal, 
0 
held: The claim for appointment was neither covered under 
the scheme of 'land displaced persons' nor under the scheme 
of compassionate appointment -
Hence, the claim for 
appointment was rightly rejected by the employer. 
The land belonging to the joint family of respondent 
E 
No.1 was acquired at the instance of National Aluminium 
Company Ltd. (NALCO) for setting up its establishment. 
Under the scheme introduced by NALCO, for assistance 
of displaced persons whose lands were acquired, 
brother of first respondent was appointed with NALCO 
as 'mazdoor'. When brother of first respondent died in a 
road accident, first respondent approached NALCO for 
his appointment in place of his brother, which was denied 
by NALCO. First respondent filed writ petition, wherein 
F 
the High Court directed NALCO to provide employment G 
to the first respondent under the Scheme of land 
displaced persons relying on two similar cases wherein 
appointment had been given to the brothers of the 
deceased employees. Hence the present appeal. 
1045 
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court failed to examine the issue 
in the proper perspective. The appointment relating to 
land given cases, as well as compassionate appointment 
in NALCO are governed by specific schemes and the 
8 Division Bench of the High Court failed to examine those 
schemes before issuing the ultimate direction to the 
appellants. [Para 5] [1050-F, G] 
2. The provisions under the land displaced persons 
c scheme, makes it clear that in respect of a claim under 
the category of a "land displaced persons", owned by a 
family, it is for the head of the family to nominate one 
among his family members who is his dependant, that 
such nomination under special circumstances would be 
D allowed to be changed once, that such nominated 
person would be authenticated by the concerned 
Revenue Officer and befitting the qualification possessed 
by such a nominee, the appointment would be made. The 
provision for changing the nominee under special 
E circumstances is far different from anyone seeking for 
appointment of an alternate candidate in the place of 
originally nominated person whose employment for no 
fault of NALCO ceased to survive due to unforeseen 
circumstances like death, etc. The provisions contained 
F in the scheme does not provide for appointment of an 
alternate candidate in place of originally nominated 
person whose appointment had already taken effect and 
for whatsoever reason the said appointment did not 
survive later on. [Para 11] [1053-G, H; 1054-A-C] 
G 
3. Apart from the above scheme providing for 
employment under the category of "land displaced 
persons", the only other scope for anyone to claim 
appointment in NALCO is under the scheme of 
"employment on compassionate ground". The guidelines 
H relating to "employment on compassionate. ground" is 
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR v. BHARAT CHANDRA 1 04 7 
BEHERA· 
conditional to the effect that such employment would be 
A 
considered only in the case of accidental death arising 
out of and in the course of employment as governed by 
the provisions of the Workman's Compensation Act. It is 
also stipulated that such appointment might be offered 
on being satisfied that there is no other means of B 
livelihood for the family of the deceased employee. The 
very vital condition under the compassionate 
employment scheme is that such employment can be 
claimed only by the dependant wife or son or daughter 
of the deceased, who possess the minimum· requisite c 
qualification for any non-executive post. [Paras 12 and 13] 
[1054-D; 1055-C-D] 
4. The claim of the first respondent was under the land 
displaced persons scheme. When the said claim is 
considered, indisputably his elder brother was offered 
D 
appointment under the said category and was also 
appointed as a Mazdoor. He continued to discharge

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