STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus SHRI SURAJ BHAN

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 170 · Decided: 30-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI SURAJ BHAN. 
OCTOBER 30, 1996. 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Compassionate appointment-Driver declared unfit to drive heavy 
C vehicles-After retirement sought appointment of his son on compassionate 
grounds-High Court directing appointment-On appeal, held, Rules of 
compassionate appointment not applicable. Son of disabled driver cannot 
be appointed on this basis-He may apply in response to advertisement for 
recruitment-If age-barred, time spent in the service of the appellant-State 
would be considered for relaxation. 
D 
E 
State of Haryana v. Hawa Singh, [1995) 2 SCALE 77 ;md State of 
Haryana and Ors. v. Surjeet Singh, (1996) 5 SCALE 493, relied on. 
Anand Bihari and Ors. v. RSRTC, Jaipur, [1991 ( 1 SCC 371; 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.14583 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.94 of the Punjab and 
F Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 6291 of 1993. 
Prem Malhotra for the Appellants. 
Ugra Shankar Prasad and R.P.A . .Taiswal for th1i Respondent. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
Delay condoned. 
H 
Leave granted. 
170 
STATE OF HARYANA v. SURAJ BHAN 
171 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
A 
The respondent was appointed as a Driver on November l, 1970 
with the appellant-Corporation. By proceedings dated August 7, 1992, he 
was declared unfit to drive heavy vehicles. It appears that he was given 
extension of service and he retired from service on 16.10.1995. In the 
meanwhile, he had applied for appointment of his son on compassionate B 
grounds, he being an implied employee. Since the appellant had not 
appointed him, he filed Writ Petition No. 6291193. The High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana by its judgment dated August 16, 1995 directed the 
appellant to appoint his son on compassionate grounds. Thus, this appeal, 
by special leave. 
In State of Haryana v. Hawa. Singh, [1995] (2) SCALE 77, a Bench 
of three Judges of this Court had considered a similar question. The 
respondent therein, also, was declared medically unfit for driving heavy 
vehicles by the District Medical Officer due to defect in his eye sight. On 
c 
the basis of the medical report, the respondent retired from service of the 
appellant-Corporation. Then he had applied for appointment of his son on D 
compassionate grounds. This Court, after noticing another judgment of 
this Court inAnand Bihari and Ors. v. RSRTC Jaipur, [1991] l SCC 371, 
had held that the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds has 
no application to the persons who retired from service on medical unfitness 
to drive heavy vehicles. This Court had explained the ratio inAnand Bihari 's E. 
case in paragraph 6 and held that the High Court was not justified in that 
case in directing that one of the defendants-respondent therein, be given a 
suitable job commensurate wit!Hhe educational qualifications possessed 
by them. Thus, the approach in Anand Bihari 's case was not approved of 
and it was held that only in exceptional circumstance, where it is not 
possible to adjust them in any alternative job, the driver who is declared F 
medically unfit may be paid compensation as indicated in Anand Bihari 's 
case but not to make appointment on compassionate grounds. 
In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Surjeet Singh, [l 996] 5 SCALE 
493, this Court had considered the very same question and held that the G 
rules of compassioante appointment are inapplicable to a driver who was 
disabled in sight to drive heavy vehicles and that, therefore, compassioante 
appointment to the son of such disabled driver cannot be made. 
Learned counsel for the respondent sought reliance on para 6 of the 
judgment wherein this Court had held that the order issued by the High H 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A Court was not to be interfered with pursuant to the concession made by 
the counsel for the appellant that the case of the respondent's son therein 
would be considered. Pursuant thereto, his case was considered a'nd 
appointment was made and, therefore, the same benefit may be given to 
the respondent's son herein also. Hawa Singh 's case was not brought to 
the notice of this Court in Surjeet Singh 's case. In Surjeet Singh 's case 
B (supra), this Court had specifically laid down the law that since the law 
was laid down for the first time, in that case it was held that the direction 
issued for non-interference in that case wo

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