UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 04-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, N.P. SINGH

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ ,, 
• 
UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
MAY 4, 1994 
[P.B. SWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Service Law : Appointment to Public Service-On compassionate 
grounds-Considerations to be taken into account-Categories of posts to 
which such appointments could be made-Guidelines issued. 
In these two appeals preferred against the decision of the High 
Court, the question that arose was as regards the considerations which 
should guide while giving appointment in public service on compassionate 
grounds. 
A 
B 
c 
Dismissing the appeals and laying down guidelines for appointment D 
on compassionate grounds, this court 
HELD : 1.1. Out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into 
account 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 E 
the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the 
deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of 
granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over 
sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post 
much less a post held by the deceased. [895-H-896-A) 
F 
1.2. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family 
to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority 
concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the 
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of 
employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to G 
be offered to the eligible member of the family. [896-B] 
1.3. The posts in Class-III and Class IV are the lowest posts in 
non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered 
on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the 
financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision H 
893 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is 
justifiable and vaUd since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treat-
ment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts had 
a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against 
destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the 
B public authorities for the purpose. As against the destitute family of the 
deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more 
destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the 
deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and 
the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the 
family engendered by the erstwhile employments which are suddenly up· 
C 
turned. [896-C-D-E] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2. Some Governments and public authorities have been offering 
compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective 
of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even 
in posts above Classes Ill and IV. That is legally impermissible. [896-F-G] 
Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1989) 4 SLR 327, 
explained. 
3. In the present case, the High Court bas rightly pointed out that 
the State Government's instructions in question did not justify compas-
sionate employment in Class II posts. The Respondent State Government 
had made at least one exception and provided compassionate employment 
in Class II post on the specious ground that the person concerned had 
technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B.Tech. etc. Such exception, 
is illegal since it is contrary to the object of making exception to the general 
rule. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the 
penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualifications of 
his dependent nor the post which he held is relevant. [897-B-C] 
4. If the dependent of the deceased-employee finds it below his 
dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not 
offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic 
calamity. [897-H-898-A] 
5. Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a 
reasonable period which n1ust be specified in the rules. The consideration 
H 
for such employinent is not a vested right which can be exercised at any 
' 
.. 
) 
• 
U.K.NAGPAL v. STATEOFHARYANA[SAWANT,J.] 
895 
time in future. [898-B] 
6. The provisions for compass

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