HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus NARESH TANWAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 02-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
• r 
.... 
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
A 
v. 
NARESH T ANWAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Compassionate appointment-Intended to meet the immediate finan-
cial problem suffered by the members of the f amity due to the sudden demise 
C 
of the eaming member-Compassionate appointment-Not to be granted after 
a long lapse of reasonable pe1iod. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal Nos. 3216-17 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.94 of the Punjab & D 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4722 of 1993. 
K.K. Jain, Ajay Jain, Shashi Bhushan and Pramod Dayal for the 
Appellant. 
.. 
Ra_jesh Sharma for Goodwill Indeever for the Appellant in C.A. No. 
3217/96. 
T.N. Singh and B.M. Sharma Respondent. 
E 
Balwant Singh Malik and Kusum Singh for the Respondent in C.A. 
F 
No. 3217/96. 
. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. In both these matters, the G 
question of compassionate employment of the heir of the deceased 
employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board is required to be con-
sidered. In the first matter concerning SLP (C) No. 7878/95 the ex-
employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board died on 18.11.80. The 
widow of the deceased-employee made an application inter alia indicating H 
69 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A therein that she had not married and she had three minor children, the 
eldest of them having been born in 1972. As per the existing circular for 
giving relief to the distressed member of the family of the deceased-
employee, ex- gratia payment was given to the widow of the family. It is 
only in 1992, the representation was made by the respondent-the mother 
B of the Naresh Tanwar, the son of the deceased-employee that since the son 
had attained majority by that time, he should be given appointment on 
compassionate ground. Such representation was, however, rejected and, 
therefore, a writ petition was moved before the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court has directed that 
such compassionate appointment should be given to the respondent-
C Naresh Tanwar. In this appeal, the said judgment is impugned. 
In the appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 13708/95, an ex-employee of 
Haryana State Electricity Board died on 16.3.75 and a representation was 
made by the widow of the deceased-employee in October, 1988 for ap-
D pointment of the son of the widow of the employee by contending that by 
that time, the minor son had attained majority and, therefore, eligible to 
be given appointment. Such representation was rejected by the State 
Electricity Board but the writ petition filed by the respondent Sonana Devi 
the widow of the said ex-employee has been allowed by the impugned 
judgment by directing the State Electricity Board to give appointment to 
E the son of the said respondent Sonana Devi being the heir· of the deceased-
employee, on compassionate ground. 
Learned counsel appearing for the State Electricity Board in these 
matters have drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Umesh 
F 
Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana and Ors., [1994] 4 sec 138. In the said 
case, a scheme was made for appointment to a Class II post by the heirs 
of the ex-employee on the ground of compassionate appointment. This 
court has not only held in the said decision that no scheme for appointment 
to Class-II or Class I shall be made by way of appointment on the score of 
compassionate appointment, but it has been further indicated in the said 
G decision that : 
H 
"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 is 
permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are 
-
·. 
-
) 
H.S.E. BOARD v. N. TANWAR 
71 
at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications A 
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 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 denury 
and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure 
humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that 
unless some sou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.