MD. ZAMIL AHMED versus STATE OF BLHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 05-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 341 
MD. ZAMIL AHMED 
V. 
STATE OF lllHAR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4815of2016) 
MAYS,2016 
(.I. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANUHAR SAPRE, .IJ.( 
·"ervice LaH': 
Appoi11/111e11/ 011 co1111wssi01wle iro1111d - Of the hrother of 
the tlecea.\·ell e11111!o_vee -A.fier taking 111u!l!rlaki11.~_fi·o111 the llfJJJointee 
tlwt he 11•011/d 111ai11tai11 the .fi11nily o( the deceased·- Afier 15 years 
<~f llJJjJOi11tn1e11J, ,\)/ale ler111inatell the services 011 the grou11cl thal 
aJJjJOi11t111e11t 011 co1111Jassio11ate gro111ul 111as ille~{!,a/ ancl against the 
policy as the brother of'the deceased does not fall within d~finilion 
of 'dependant of lhe deceased' and hence not eligihle .fi1r 
compassionate appoinl111en/ - Writ petitio11 challe11gi11i termination 
order dismissed - The order co1(/irmed by Division Bench of High 
Court - On appeal, held: In view o( 1111disputedfi1c/s of the case 
and more so in view of the fi1ct that there was no fiilse declaration 
nor Sl!JJJJre·ssio11 <~f 011;1 11u1/erial .facl .for securing lljJJJOi11t111e11t, 
autliorities co11cer11e<I H'ere not righl 'in ter111i11ati11g /he ,\·ervice,\/ 
cancelling the appoi11/111enl (lfier 15 years - '/lie Stale was not entitled 
to take advantage of its 011·n mistake - State directed to reinstate 
the services of the appellant with all the Gonsequenlial benefits -
Cos/ of Rs.5000/- i11!11osed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The fact that the appellant was younger brother 
of the deceased >yas within the knowledge of the State. Similarly, 
.the State was aware that the brother docs not fall within the 
definition of dependent at the relevant time and still the State 
authorities obtained the undertaking from the appellant that he 
would maintain the family of the deceased once given the 
appointment. It was a conscious decision taken by the State for 
giving an appointment to the appellant_ for the benefit of the family 
members of the deceased who were facing financial hardship due 
to sudden demise of their bread earner. The appellant being the 
only close relative of the deceased could be given the appointment 
in the circumstances prevailing in the family. It was a right decision 
341 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
taken by the State as a welfare state to help the family of the 
deceased at the time of need of the family. The position would 
have !Jeen different if the appellant had committed some kind of 
fraud or manipulation or suppression of material fact for securing 
the appointment. (Paras 20, 21 and 221 (345-E-G; 346-C] 
B 
2. There is no _justification on the part of the State to dig 
out the appellant's case after 15 years of his appointment and 
terminate his services on the ground that as per the State policy, 
the appellant did not fall within the definition of the expression 
"dependent of deceased" to claim compassionate appointment. 
Keeping in view the peculiar undisputed facts of the case and 
C 
having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the State was 
not justified in terminating the appellant's services. [Paras 14 
and 191 (344-F; 345-DJ 
3. The respondent-State is directed to reinstate the 
appellant in service with all consequential benefits such as 
D 
payment of full back wages payable from the date of termination 
till the date of reinstatement in service. The appellant is also 
entitled to claim his seniority and notional promotions as per rules. 
[Pard 251 (346-F] 
4. Cost of the appeal is quantified at Rs.5000/- and the 
E 
same be paid to the appellant by the respondent-State along with 
the arrears of back wages. [Para 27] [346-G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4815 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2013 of the High Court 
F of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 758 of2013. 
G 
H 
Chandra Prakash. Adv., for the Appellant. 
Rudreshwar Singh, Samir Ali Khan, Ad vs., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 
20.12.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 758 
of2013 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the 
appeal filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 08.11.2010 
of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in C. W.J .C. No. 5713 of 
2006 in which it was held that the appellant being the brother of the 
MD. ZAMIL AHMED v. STATE OF BIHAR 
3

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