UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus SHASHANK GOSWAMI & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 23-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 98 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
SHASHANK GOSWAMI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6224 of 2008) 
MAY 23, 2012 
[DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law -
Appointment -
Compassionate 
appointment - Held: Cannot be claimed as a matter of right -
C Appointment on compassionate ground is not another source 
of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of 
taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee 
while in service leaving his family without any means of 
livelihood - Applicant cannot claim appointment in a 
D particular class/group of post -
Appointments on 
compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with 
the rules, regulations or administrative instructions faking into 
consideration the financial condition of the family of the 
deceased - On facts, the Compassionate Scheme provided 
E that in case the family gets more than Rs. 3 lakhs, the 
dependent of the deceased would not be eligible for 
employment on compassionate ground - Retiral/terminal 
benefits have been received by the family exceeding Rs.3 
lakhs, thus, respondent not eligible to be considered for the 
F Group 'C' post. 
Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of 
India & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 289; Punjab National Bank & 
Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265: 2004 (3 ) 
Suppl. SCR 597; General Manager (O&PB) & Ors. v. Kunti 
G Tiwari & Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 271; Mumtaz Yunus Mu/ani (Smt.) 
v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 384: 2008 (5) 
SCR 241- referred to. 
H 
98 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. SHASHANK GOSWAMI & 
99 
ANR. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2005) 1 o sec 289 
Referred to. 
2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 597 Referred to. 
(2004) 1 sec 211 
2008 (5) SCR 241 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
Para 11 
Para 11 
Para 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6224 of 2008. 
A 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.2006 of the High 
C 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 
28535 of 2006. 
S.P. Singh, Sushma Suri, B. Sunita Rao, D.S. Mahara for 
the Appellants. 
D 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned 
E 
judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.28535 of 2006 
directing the appellants herein to reconsider application of 
respondent no.1 on compassionate grounds. 
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are 
that one Anand Kishore Gautam working as Senior Accountant 
in the office of the Accountant General, Allahabad died on 
19.3.2001 in harness, leaving behind two sons aged about-20 
F 
and 19 years and a daughter, aged about 17 years and Smt. 
Rashmi Gautam, ?his widow. 
G 
3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for appointment 
on compassionate grounds, which came to be rejected by the 
appellants on 28.1.2004 in view of the prevailing scheme for 
appointments on compassionate grounds. Under the scheme-, 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 6 S.C.R. 
A vacancies could be filled up on compassionate grounds only 
upto 5% of the cadre strength falling under direct recruitment 
quota during a year in Group 'C ' and 'D ' posts. 
The scheme further lays down that the total income of the 
8 family from all sources including terminal benefits after death, 
excluding G.P.F., should be taken into consideration. So far as 
the post of Group 'C' is concerned, the scheme provides that 
in case the family gets more than Rs.3 lakhs, the dependent of 
the deceased would not be eligible for employment on 
compassionate ground. 
c 
4. Respondent No.1· could not be offered appointment on 
the ground that excluding G.P.F. amount, his family had received 
a sum of Rs.4,40,908/- in addition to family pension of 
Rs.3, 100/- per month granted to Mrs. Rash mi Gautam. She was 
O entitled to get the said family pension at least for seven years 
· and thereafter, the family pension would be Rs.1,860/- per 
month plus ?other reliefs admissible on pension 
5. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 
E 28.1.2004 rejecting his claim, before Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Allahabad vide Original Application No. 728 of 2004, 
wherein the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 7.12.2005 
quashed the order dated 28.1.2004 and directed the appellants 
herein to reconsider the case of respondent No.1. 
F 
6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants 
preferred CMWP No.28535 of 2006 before the High Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.