LexSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus RANI DEVI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. RANI DEVI AND ANR. JULY 15, 1996 [N.P. SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, .IJ.] Seivice Law: Punjab Civil Se1Vices Rules, 1953: Paragraphs 2, 6 (Chapter fl)-Govemment of Hmyana Notifications dated 3 I, 10, 1985 a11d 9.5.1972-Appointment on compassionate grounds-Claim by widows of deceased Apprentice canal Patwaris-Held, not n1aintainabl~Sche111e regarding OjJpointnient on conzpassionate grounds ' cannot be extended to casual, ad hoc eniployees, including those "fVhO are D engaged as apprentices-Appoi11tment on compassio11ate grounds being an exception to equality clause under A1ticle 14 of the Constitution, right to such appointment flows on the basis of rules, regulations or some administrative order issued in the Fann of resolution or office memorandum-S!lclt appoint- ments cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be specif;ed in the rules. E. Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 14 and 16-Appointment on compassionate grounds-Held, the Scheme ca11not be extended to casual, ad hoc employees includi11g those F who are engaged as apprentices as such scheme cannot be justified on constitutio11al grounds. The respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court praying for directions to the Government of Haryana to appoint them to class IV posts on compassionate grounds, as their respective husbands, who were G appointed on ad hoc basis to work as Apprentice Canal Patwaris, died in harness. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeals. It was contended for the appellants that 'Apprentice' as defined in Paragraph 2.6 of Chapter II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (1953), as H in force in State of Haryana, not being employed in or against a substantive 560 - , STATEv. RANI DEVI 561 vacancy and in view of the Government Notification dated 9.5.1972 extend- A ing the Scheme or benefit of ex-gratia payment to dependents of Govern- ment employees who died while in service not being applicable to ad hoc employees, the respondents were not entitled to appointment on compas- sionate grounds. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : I. The expression 'employee' occurring in the Government order dated 31.10.1985 extending the benefit or appointment to one or the dependents of the 'deceased employee', does not conceive casual, purely ad hoc employees or those \\'ho are working as apprentices. The respective husbands of the respondents worked as Apprentice Canal Patwaris. The High Court erred in issuing directions for appointment of respondents on compassionate grounds. The orders of the High Court are set aside. [556-D; 565·F] B c 2. The scheme regarding appointment on compassionate grounds D cannot be extended to casual, ad hoc employees, including those who arc \Vorking as apprentices as such scheme cannot be justified on constitution- al grounds. [565-F-G] 3.1. Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the equality clause under Article 14 or the Constitution and can be upheld if E such appointees can be held to form a class by themselves, otherwise any such appointment merely on the ground that the person concerned hap- pens to be a dependent of an ex- employee of the State Government or the Central Government shall be violative or Articles 14 and 16 or the Con- stitution. But if an employee dies while in service then according to the rules framed by the Central Government or the State Government to appoint one or the dependents shall not be violative or Articles 14 and 16 because it is to mitigate the hardship due to the death or the bread earner of the family. It is, therefore, necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test F of Articles 14 and 16. [564-B-C; 565-E) G Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1989) SC 1976 = [1989) 4 sec 468, relied on. 3.2. Right to appointment on compassionate grounds flows on basis of rules, regulations or some administrative order issued in the form of H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A resolution on Office memorandum. While framing rules in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds the authorities have to be con- scious of the fact that this right which is being extended to a dependent of the deceased employee is an exception to the right granted to the citizen under Article 14 and 16 of the C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.