LexHINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. versus SMT. A. RADHIKA THIRUMALAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' , HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. A v. SMT. A. RADHIKA THIRUMALAI OCTOBER 9, 1996 B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) SeTVice Law-Public SeTVices-Compassionate Appointments-An ex- ception to general mle that appointments to be made on basis of merit-Ap- pointment on compassionate ground to be given in accordance wit/I C Rules-No person can claim such appointment in disregard of such mies or guidelines. Appellant, a public sector undertaking made rules providing for employment on compassionate grounds providing that the General Managers were empowered to effect such appointment depending upon D availability of vacancies in the respective staffing cadre/authorization. The husband of the respondent, employed as Senior Inspector in one of. the units of the appellant died in 1987. After his death the respondent sub· mitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. Her name was put on the wait list of candidates but on account of a ban having E been imposed on further appointments no appointment could be made on compassionate grounds out of that wait list. The respondent filed a writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to provide suitable permanent employment to the respondent by creating a super· numerary post. The High Court allowing the writ petition directed the appellant to consider the candidature of the respondent on compassionate F grounds to any suitable post in Class III or Class IV only. The appeal filed against the judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that appointment on compassionate grounds is given not· withstanding whether there is any vacancy in the regular service or cadre or post, by creating supernumerary post and continuing such super· numerary appointment until a regular vacancy is made available. This G appeal had been filed against the judgment of Division Bench. The appellant submitted that during the last 10 years, owing to change of policies, there was a serious decline in the work-order position and there had been a progressive reduction of the workforce including H 357 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7S.C.R. A Class III and Class IV employees in all the units and that the High Court was in error in holding that even when there is no vacancy available and there is a ban on fresh recruitment it was incumbent on the appellant to give appointment on compassionate grounds to the respondent. B The respondent supporting the judgment of the High Court sub- mitted that since appointments had admittedly been made by the appellant on compassionate grounds in the medical department there was no reason why the respondent could not be given an appointment on compassionate grounds in that department. C Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : Appointment in public services on compassionate ground has been carved out as an exception, in the interests of justice, to the general rule that appointments in the public services should be made D strictly on the basis of open invitation on applications and merit and no other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. A compassionate appointment is made out of pure humanitarian considera- tion taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet E and the whole object of granting such appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. An appointment on compassionate ground has to be given in accordance with the relevant rules and guidelines that have been framed by the concerned authority and no person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds in disregard of such rule or such guideline. In the appellant company appointment on compassionate p grounds was governed by rules. Under Rule 78.1 provision was made that one of the dependents of the deceased employee could be ~onsidered for appointment in the company in preference to other applicants without being sponsored by employment exchange. But in Rule 78.3 it had been laid down that such appointment would be made depending upon the availability of vacancies in the respective staffing cadre/authorization. An G appointment on compassionate grounds could be made only if a vacancy was available. In the instant case the ban on fresh recruitment was in force when the respondent submitted the application for appointment on com- passionate grounds. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.