PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus NIRVAL SINGH

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 06-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
905
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.
v.
NIRVAL SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 4660 of 2019)
MAY 6, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service law: Appointment – Compassionate appointment –
Respondent sought compassionate appointment on account of death
of his father who was working with the appellant – The policy of
compassionate appointment was in force on the date of his
application – However, his request was not acceded to on the ground
that the implementation of the policy was kept in abeyance on
account of the consideration of new policy – When new policy came
into effect, respondent was sought to be granted the benefit under
the new policy in terms whereof Rs 3 lakh was offered to him and in
the alternative was offered a temporary post – Respondent declined
both the options – After 7 years, he filed writ petition – High Court
disposed of the writ petition with direction to the appellant to
consider his application in a time bound manner as per policy –
The appellant rejected the request – On second writ petition, the
respondent was relegated to remedy of a civil suit – By impugned
judgment, the relief was granted in favour of the respondent – On
appeal, held: The fundamental principle is that there is no inherent
right to obtain a compassionate appointment and such
compassionate appointment has to be in accordance with the existing
policy as the objective is to ameliorate the condition of the family at
the relevant stage of time and it is the deviation from the rule of
merit – There is more than one impediment in the way of the
respondent – There was delay in approaching the Courts for
redressal – The very objective of providing immediate amelioration
to the family is extinguished – The earlier policy having been
abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the
application was considered under the new policy and the options
available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail the
same – The offer of solatium could be the only remedy available,
more so at this stage of time – The solatium of Rs.3 lakh was offered
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 905
905
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
earlier – As per the current policy, the solatium is revised to Rs. 5
lakhs – In the interest of justice, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs is directed to
be paid to the respondent – Solatium.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4660
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order  dated  23.03.2018 of the  High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 3975 of 2017.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Manan Bansal, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Akshay Verma, Akashdeep Verma, Mrs. Sushma Verma, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent sought compassionate appointment on account
of the death of his father on 17.05.2004, who was working with the
appellants.  On the date the application was submitted, the policy for
compassionate appointment dated 21.11.2002, is stated to have been in
force.
4. The respondent did not get any compassionate appointment
and it is the case of the appellants that the implementation of the policy
was kept in abeyance on account of the consideration of a new policy.
The new policy came into effect on 23.11.2004.   The respondent was
sought to be granted the benefit under the new policy in terms whereof
solatium of Rs. 3 lakhs was offered to him.  In the alternative the
respondent was also offered the benefit of temporary post.  He declined
both the options.
5. For the first time the respondent approached any  judicial forum
in the year 2011 by filing a Writ Petition which was disposed of on
12.03.2012 to consider his application in a time bound manner as per
policy.  The petitioner, however, rejected the request.  In the second
Writ Petition filed assailing this decision, the respondent was relegated
to the remedy of a civil suit as requested.  The respondent filed the civil
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
907
suit where his suit was initially dismissed but thereafter the appeal was
allowed and in terms of the impugned order the second appeal has also
been dismissed.
6. These orders are now sought to be assailed by the appellants.
7. The fundamental principle which has to be kept in mind is that
there is no inherent right to obtain a compassionate appointment and
such compassionate appointment has to be in accordance with the existing
policy as

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