THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus PREMLATA

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 05-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
PREMLATA
(Civil Appeal No. 6003 of 2021)
OCTOBER 05, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Dying-In-Harness Rules 1974 – r.5 – Compassionate
appointment – Suitable post – Respondent’s husband, a Class-IV
government servant died while serving as Messenger in Police Radio
Department – She sought appointment on compassionate ground in
a Class-III post – Refused offer of appointment on the post of
Messenger – Filed writ petition which was dismissed by Single Judge
of High Court – Appeal, allowed by Division Bench – Held: Initially
the respondent applied for compassionate appointment on the post
of Assistant Operator in the Department – It was rightly not accepted
on the ground that she did not fulfill requisite eligibility criteria –
Then she applied for appointment on the post of Workshop Hand
wherein her case was considered, however, she failed in physical
test examination – It was thereafter that she was offered appointment
as Messenger which was equivalent to the post held by the deceased
employee – Division Bench misinterpreted r.5 in holding that ‘suitable
post’ thereunder would mean any post suitable to the qualification
of the candidate and the appointment on compassionate ground is
to be offered considering the educational qualification of the
dependent – Such interpretation would defeat the object of
appointment on compassionate ground which is to enable the family
to tide over the sudden crisis – Object is not to give such family a
post much less a post held by the deceased – Suitable post has to be
considered, considering status/post held by the deceased employee
– Appellants justified in offering the appointment to the respondent
on the post of Messenger – Impugned order set aside – Order passed
by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition restored – Service
Law.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Object and
purpose of – Discussed.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 597
597
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Held:
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of
appointment in the public services – It is a concession and not a
right.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 As per the law laid down by Supreme court in
catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground,
for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be
provided to all aspirants as mandated under Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate
ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an
exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a
concession and not a right. Compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services
and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness
and leaving his family in penury and without any means of
livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to
make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased
who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of
granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family
to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such
family a post much less a post held by the deceased. [Paras 9,
10][606-E-F; 608-F-H; 609-A-B]
1.2 The Division Bench of the High Court in the present
case has interpreted Rule 5 of Dying-In-Harness Rules 1974 and
has held that ‘suitable post’ under Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 would
mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate
irrespective of the post held by the deceased employee. The
aforesaid interpretation by the Division Bench of the High Court
is just opposite to the object and purpose of granting the
appointment on compassionate ground. ‘Suitable post’ has to be
considered, considering status/post held by the deceased
employee and the educational qualification/eligibility criteria is
required to be considered, considering the post held by the
deceased employee and the suitability of the post is required to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
be considered vis a vis the post held by the deceased employee,
otherwise there shall be no difference/distinction between the
appointment on compassionate ground and the regular
appointment. In a given case it may happen that t

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