NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION AND ANR. versus NANAK CHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 596 · Decided: 15-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION AND ANR. 
v. 
NANAK CHAND AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 15, 2004 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Application for appointment on compassionate ground-Rejected ·by 
C authorities on ground that the application was made belatedly-Challenged 
by incumbent after a lapse of seven years-Allowed by High Court-On 
appeal, Held: Appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of 
recruitment but an exception to the appointment by an open competition-
It enables the bereaved family to get over sudden financial crisis-However, 
D compassion~te appointment cannot be claimed belatedly/beyond the time 
limit prescribed to that effect-Hence, Judgment of the High Court not 
sustainable-However, . the case of the applicant could be considered 
sympathetically under any scheme/adminis.trative decision in accordance 
with law. 
E 
Father of the respondent was working in a Hydroelectric project of the 
Government of India. He died_ while in service. Later the Project was 
transferred to the appellant-Corporation. Respondent, after attaining the age 
of majority, filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground, 
which was rejected on the ground that it was made 10 years after the death of 
F his father. Later, the Corporation laid down guidelines indicating time limit 
for applying for such appointment Respondent filed a writ petition challenging 
rejection of his application by the Corporation. High Court directed the 
Corporation/Government of India to appoint the respondent Hence the present 
appeal· 
G 
H 
It was contended for the appellant-Corporation that since the purpose 
of appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden unforeseen 
financial constraints, no direction for such appointment should have been 
given on the application made belatedly; and that since they hne their own 
administrative instruction on the subject, the instructions of the Central 
Government were not applicable. 
596 
.. 
> 
NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPN. v. NANAK CHAND 
597 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The appointment on compassionate ground is not a source 
of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding 
appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic 
intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not 
deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get · B 
over sudden financial crisis. [599-G-Hl 
1.2. Public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of 
open invitation of applications and merit The appointment on compassionate 
ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the 
aforesaid requirement taking into consideration. the fact of the death of C 
employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. 
In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial 
crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in 
accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking 
into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 
D 
[60C-E-F) 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi and Anr., JT (1996) 6 SCC 646; 
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) 
and Anr., [19941 2 SCC 718; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and 
Ors., [1994) 4SCC 138; Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and E 
Ors .. (1989) 4 SCC 468; Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of India and Ors., [1991) 
Supp. 2 SCC 689; Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh, [1995) 6 SCC 
476 and Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar 
and Ors .. (1998) 5 SCC 192, relied on. 
1.3. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointme~ts are F 
permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing 
for such appointments. None of these considerations can operate when the 
application is made after a long period of time. (600-E-F) 
State of UP. and Ors. v. Paras Nath, [199812 SCC 412; State of Manipur 
v. Md Rajaodin, [2003) 7 SCC 511 State of Haryana and Anr. v. Ankur Gupta, G 
[2003) 7 SCC 704; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 
8 SCC 23; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh. [19971 8 SCC 
85 and Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (C.A.No.5256 
of2004 decided by Supreme Court on 16.8.2004), referred to. 
H 
598 
SUPREME COURT R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.