HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.,versusHAKIM SINGH

'1           HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.,                                 A
                                            V.
                                    HAKIM SINGH

                                SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

                   [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]                               B


           Service Law :

           Compassionate appointment-Claim of-After 14 years of death of
     employee-As per circular of the Bo:ird, application for the appointment to C
     be made within 3 years-Held, after 14 years of death of employee, one of
     his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession
     by virtue of a right of inheritance.

           Compassionate Appointment :
                                                                                       D
          Object of-ls to give succour to the family which has been suddenly
     plunged into penury due to untimely death of sole bread winner-And not
     to be taken as opening an-Alternative mode of recruitment to public
     employment.

           The mother of the respondent applied for employment of her son with
                                                                                       E
     the appellant-Board on-Compassionate ground, after 14 years of death of her
     husband on the basis of circulars dated 26.9.85 and 1.10.86 issued by the
     appellant which provided that one member of the family of deceased employee
     could be considered for employment in service as a goodwill gesture provided
     request for such employment is made within three years of death of the            F
     employee. T'le circulars had further clarified that the purpose of such
     provision was not to give employment as a matter of course. Respondent was
     denied the appointment. He filed writ petition claiming the appointment. The
     appellant opposed it on the ground that application was not made within time
     specified in the circulars. Single Judge of the High court allowed the petition   G
     directing the appellant to entertain the claim of the respondent. The writ
     appeal was dismissed, hence this appeal.

           Allowing the appeal, this Court

           HELD : 1.l. The rule of appointment to public service is that they should   H
                                         377
    378                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which
   one can get into public employment. As every rule can have exceptions, there
   are few exceptions to the said rule also, which have been evolved to meet certain
   contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved
   family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his defendants in a
B vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly
   plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole bread winner. The
   object of such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative
 • mode of recruitment to public employment. [380-C-D]

          1.2. The High Court has gone wrong in giving direction to the Board to
C . consider the claim of the respondent as the request was made far beyond the
    period indicated in the circular of the Board. The High Court has erred in
    overstretching the scope of compassionate relief provided by the Board in the
    circulars. High Court has treated the provisions a lien created by the Board
    for a dependent of the deceased employee. If the family members of the deceased
    can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot
D   put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of
    inheritance. [382-D; 381-EJ

           Haryana State Electricity Barad v. Naresh Tanwar & Anr. etc. etc,
    (1996) 2, JT 542; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994]
E   4 SCC 138 and Jagdish Prasadv. State of Bihar & Anr., [1996) 1 SCC 301,
    referred to.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6917of1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.96 of the Punjab & Haryana
F   High Court in LP.A. NO. 757of1995.

           Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Appellants.

          Shakeel Ahmed and Ms. Safia Khan for the Respondent.

G         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          THOMAS, J. Leave granted.

          This appeal by the Haryana State Electricity Board ('the Board' for
    short) is in challenge of the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
H   declaring that respondent is entitled to be considered as eligible for appointment
                  H.S.E.B. v. HAKIM SINGH [THOMAS, J.)                      379
in the employment of the Board on compassionate groun~s.                           A
      The facts leading to this appeal are the following :

      Father of the respondent one Hakim Singh was a Lineman in the
employment of the Board. He died on 24.8.1974 in harness leaving behind him
his widow and minor children including the respondent. About 14 years after        B
the death of Hakim Singh his widow applied for appointing her son (the
respondent) i11 the employment of the Board, on compassionate grounds
mainly basing on two circulars issued by the Board, one on 26.9.1985 and the
other, in partial modification of the earlier, on I.I 0.1986. As per the s"irid
circulars one member of the family of the deceased employee could be               C
considered for employment in the service of the Board as a goodwill gesture,
provided request for such employment is made within one year of the death
of the employee.

      Respondent who filed the writ petition in the High Court submitted that
when his father died he was only four years old and hence his mother could         D
make the application in the prescribed form only when he attained majority
and that the Board has not given any favourable response to the repeated
representations made in this matter. The Board took his stand that as the
application was not made within the period specified in the circulars the Board
was unable to entertain the request for employment on compassionate ground.
While resisting the writ petition the Board cited the decision of the same High    E
Court dated 18.1.1995 in Sohan Lal v. HSEB, in support of their stand.

      Learned Single Judge of the High court distinguished Sohan Lat's case
on the premise that the claimant therein waited for five years after attaining
majority and that made him disentitled to employment on compassionate
grounds, whereas in the present case the request was made soon after               F
respondent attained majority. Learned Single Judge found support from three
other decisions of the High Court as the facts therein were more comparable
with the facts in this case. The extended period of three years indicated in
the circular has been interpreted by the High Court to mean in the case of
a minor child as applicable from the date he became a major. High Court has        G
observed that ''this is only possible way to give effect to the policy of giving
employment to the deceased employee where his dependents. happen to be
minor children" Accordingly learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition
and directed the Board to entertain the claim of the respondent

      Though the Board has filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the          H
    380                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A High Court the same was dismissed summarily. However, the Division Bench
    granted further period of three months to the Board to comply with the
    directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

          During consideration of the Special Leave Petition an endeavour was
    made to have matter otherwise settled between the parties. But learned counsel
B   for the Board, after taking instructions, submitted to us that a decision on the
    legal position is very much warranted from this Court as large number of
    similar claims are pending consideration before the Board.

          The rule of appointment to public service is that they should be on
C   merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one
    can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions
    there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to
    meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to
    the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his
    dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which
D   has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole
    bread-winner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of
    providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative
    mode of recruitment to public employment.

E         The first circular which afforded such a beneficial provision to the
    dependants of a deceased employee was issued by the Board on 14.9.1983
    wherein it was specified that "only one member of the family of the deceased
    employee is to be considered for employment in the Board's service as a
    goodwill gesture and the intention is not that the employment is to be
    provided as a matter of course." In the circular the time-limit within which the
F   dependant of the deceased employee is to be accommodated was fixed as one
    year. The circular further stressed that "the request for employment would be
    entertained only in the case in which widow submits application for
    employment immediately after the death of the husband." On 26.9.1983 the
    Board issued a circular clarifying that the purpose of such a provision was
G   not that employment would be given as a matter of course. However, the
    Board exiended the period as in the case of a widow with minor children from
    one year to three years "provided a request for giving such employment is
    made to the Broad within one year of the death of the employee."

          High Court relied on an earlier decision of the same High Court in which
H                                        .
    after considering the same circulars it was observed thus .
                 H.S.E.B. v. HAKIM SINGH [THOMAS, J.)                      381
       "Neither in the service of the Haryana Government nor in the service       A
       of the respondent-Board a person below the age of 18 years can be
       given employment. Therefore , if a deceased employee is survived by
       minors it is impossible to give effect to the condition incorporated in
       the circulars of the Board'dated 26.9.1985 and 1.10.1986 which requires
       submission of application within three years of the death. of the          B
       employee. A condition which is impossible to be performed is ordinarily
       liable to be treated as arbitrary and unconstitutional but if such
       condition can be given a reasonable meaning so as to avoid the
       charge of unconstitutionality that interpretation has to be preferred.
       Therefore the instructions contained in the circulars dated 26.9.1985
       and I.I 0.1986 will have to be interpreted to mean that in case of a       C
       minor child the period of three years would be applicable from the
       date he becomes major.

      Learned single Judge followed the aforesaid observations and issued
the impugned directions to the Board.
                                                                                  D
      We are of the view that the High Court has erred in over str~tching the
scope of the compassionate relief provided by the Board in the circulars as
above. It appears that High Court would have treated the provision as a lien
created by the Board for a dependent of the deceased employee. If the family
members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his
death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward claim as though it is a line      E
of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions
should not be forgotten that it is to give succour to the family to tide over
the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependants on account of the untimely
demise of its sole earning member.

      This Court has considered the scope of the aforesaid circulars in Haryana   F
State Electricity Boardv. Naresh Tanwar and Anr. etc. etc., (1996) 2 JT 542.

      In that case widow of a deceased employee made an application almost
twelve years after the death of her husband requesting for accommodating
her son in the employment of the Board, but it was rejected by the Board.         G
When she moved the High Court the Board was directed to appoint him on
compassionate ground. This Court upset the said directions of the High Court
following two earlier decisions rendered by this ,court one in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 138, the other in Jadgish
Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr., [ 1996] I SCC 30 I. In the former, a Bench of
two Judges has pointed out that "the whole object of granting compassionate       H
    382                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object ·
    is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for the post
    held by the deceased''. In the latter decision which also was rendered by a
    Bench of two judges, it was observed that "the very object of appointment
    of dependant of the deceased employees who 1ie in harness is to relieve
B   unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden
    demise of earning member of the family". The learned Judges pointed out that
    if the claim of the dependent which was preferred long after the death of the
    deceased employee is to be countenanced it would amount to another mode
    of recruitment of the dependant of the deceased government servant "which
    cannot be encouraged, dehors the recruitment rules."
c         It is clear that the High Court has gone wrong in giving a direction to
    the Board to consider the claim of the respondent as the request was made
    far beyond the period indicated in the circular of the Board dated 1.10.1986.
    Respondent, if he is interested in getting employment in the Board has to
    pass through the normal route now.
D
          We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment
    of the High Court.

    K.K.T.                                                      Appeal allowed.




                                                                                    •