UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus AMRITA SINHA

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 602 · Decided: 11-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 602
602
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
AMRITA SINHA
(Civil Appeal Nos 7640-7641 of 2021)
DECEMBER 11, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD
AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Held: In
evaluating a claim for compassionate appointment, it is open to the
authorities to evaluate the financial position of the family upon the
death while in service – If the scheme requires that the family pension
must be taken into account in evaluating the merits of an application
seeking compassionate appointment, it has to be followed.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Nature of – Held:
It is not a matter of right, but is to enable the family to tide over an
immediate crisis which may result from the death of the employee.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.7640-
7641 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No.15982 of 2017 and W.M.P. No.17280
of 2017.
Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, S. S. Rizvi, Ms. Vaishali Verma, Ms.
Seema Bengani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Rabin Majumder, Adv. for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras,
by its judgment dated 26 April 2018, has affirmed the judgment and
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal1, directing the appellants to
1 “Tribunal”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
reconsider the claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionate
grounds for a post corresponding to her qualifications against vacancies
for 2014-15.
4. The spouse of the respondent was holding the rank of Sargent
in the Indian Air Force. During the course of his employment, he died
due to cancer on 6 January 2008, leaving behind the respondent and two
minor children. An application was filed by the respondent seeking
compassionate appointment, but, it was rejected on 17 February 2011. A
subsequent application which was filed on 11 February 2014 was also
rejected on 16 June 2015 on the ground that the respondent had secured
merit points which did not enable her to obtain compassionate
appointment.
5. The Union of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) issued
an OM2 on 9 October 1998 titled “Scheme of Compassionate Appointment
under the Central Government”. On 22 January 2010, the Government
of India in the Ministry of Defence3 issued an OM4 titled “Scheme of
Compassionate Appointment Relative Merit, Point and Revised Procedure
for Selection”. This was followed by another OM5 of the MoD dated 14
May 2010.
6. Following the death of her husband, the respondent was in the
receipt of a family pension in the amount of Rs 8,265 per month. The
total terminal benefits which were paid to the respondent were in the
amount of Rs 22,91,568. The case of the respondent for compassionate
appointment was evaluated and merit points were assigned under various
heads in terms of the procedure which was prescribed by the MoD. The
respondent, however, submitted that the family pension at the above
rate was payable from 7 January 2008 to 6 January 2018, after which
the amount of pension would stand reduced to Rs 4,959 per month. On
this basis, the respondent submitted before the Tribunal that she should
have been awarded 16 merit points instead of 10 against the head of
family pension. The Tribunal observed that the denial of compassionate
appointment on the ground that the respondent was drawing a monthly
pension of Rs 8,265 on the date of consideration of the case was not
2 OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D)
3 “MoD”
4 F.No.19(3/2009/D)(Lab)
5 F.No.19(3/2009/D)(Lab)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. AMRITA SINHA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
justifiable as pension is paid for the service rendered by a deceased
employee. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the quantum of pension
would stand reduced with effect from 7 January 2018 to Rs 4,959 per
month and since the deceased employee had died due to a terminal
illness, the family “might be in debt” and “might have sold the property
for his treatment”, while, at the same time, observing that it was not
going into those aspects. On this basis, the letter of rejection was quashed
and the appellants were directed to reconsider the case. The High Court,
while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, has held that the autho

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