UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus B. KISHORE

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 06-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011) 5 S.C.R. 719 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
8. KISHORE 
(Civil Appeal No. 1045 of 2006) 
APRIL 6, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law -
Appointment -
Compassionate 
appointment - Entitlement to - Respondent's wife died while 
she was in service - Respondent obtained death-cum-
C 
terminal benefits of his wife from her department -
Subsequently he made application for compassionate 
appointment -
Department rejected the application of 
respondent on the ground that he was not considered to be 
in 'indigent circumstances' - Decision upheld by Tribunal -
D 
Respondent filed writ petition - High Court allowed the writ 
petition holding that the scheme of compassionate 
appointment does not lay emphasis on indigency as a 
criterion for withholding or offering compassionate 
appointment and directed the appellants to include the name 
E 
of respondent in the list of candidates waiting for appointment 
on compassionate basis - Justification of - Held: Not justified 
- Contrary to the High Court's observation, indigence of the 
dependents of the deceased employee is the first pre-
condition to bring the case under the scheme of F 
"compassionate appointment" - If the element of indigence 
and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from 
financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of 
compassionate appointments, it would turn. out to be a 
reservation in favour of the dependents .of an employee who 
died while in service which would be directly in conflict with 
G 
the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of 
the Constitution - Respondent went abroad in search of 
employment and stayed there for four years before filing 
application for compassionate appointment - Though he 
719 
H 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A might have been struggling for financial upliftment, he 
certainly cannot be described as an indigent or destitute -
Case of respondent therefore did not come under the scheme 
of compassionate appointments as envisaged under Office 
Memorandum dated October 9, 1998 - Even otherwise and 
s without any reference to the said Office Memorandum, case 
of the respondent does not meet or satisfy the basic object 
and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds -
Further, respondent has already attained the age of 
superannuation and there is no question of his appointment 
c on compassionate ground or on any other ground -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16. 
The wife of the respondent died while giving birth to 
their second child. At that time she was working as a 
Senior Accountant in the Office of the Directorate of 
D Postal Accounts. The respondent made an application for 
payment of her death-cum-terminal dues and 
subsequently also made request for compassionate 
appointment. After payment of monetary dues to the 
respondent, the claim of respondent for appointment on 
E compassionate basis was taken up. The respondent was 
informed that he was not found entitled to appointment 
on compassionate grounds because he was not 
considered to be "in indigent circumstances". 
Challenging the said decision, the respondent filed O.A. 
F before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. 
Respondent filed writ petition. 
The High Court, however, allowed the writ petition 
inter a/ia holding that the Scheme of compassionate 
appointment does not lay emphasis on indigency as a 
G criterion for withholding or offering compassionate 
appointment and that compassionate appointment is to 
be made as a result of the death of the deceased official 
and when his/her family is in immediate need of 
assistance. The High Court held that in the instant case 
H 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. 8. KISHORE 
721 
there was a young son to be looked after and brought A 
up and it cannot, therefore, be said that the family (of 
respondent) was not in need of income and thereafter 
directed the appellants to include the name of respondent 
in the list of candidates waiting for appointment on 
compassionate basis. Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. On going through the judgment passed by 
the High Court, it is evident that it is based on a complete 
misconception about the scheme of compassionate 
C 
appointments. Contrary to the High Court's observation, 
indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee 
is the first pre-condition to bring the case under the 
scheme of "compassionate appointment". The very 
pur

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