STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusRANI DEVI AND ANR.

A                       STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
                                     v.
                            RANI DEVI AND ANR.

                                    JULY 15, 1996

B                  [N.P. SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, .IJ.]

           Seivice Law:

           Punjab Civil Se1Vices Rules, 1953:

c           Paragraphs 2, 6 (Chapter fl)-Govemment of Hmyana Notifications
     dated 3 I, 10, 1985 a11d 9.5.1972-Appointment on compassionate
     grounds-Claim by widows of deceased Apprentice canal Patwaris-Held, not
     n1aintainabl~Sche111e regarding OjJpointnient on conzpassionate grounds            '
     cannot be extended to casual, ad hoc eniployees, including those "fVhO are
D    engaged as apprentices-Appoi11tment on compassio11ate grounds being an
     exception to equality clause under A1ticle 14 of the Constitution, right to such
     appointment flows on the basis of rules, regulations or some administrative
     order issued in the Fann of resolution or office memorandum-S!lclt appoint-
     ments cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be
     specif;ed in the rules.
E.
           Constitution of India, 1950 :

            Articles 14 and 16-Appointment on compassionate grounds-Held,
     the Scheme ca11not be extended to casual, ad hoc employees includi11g those
F    who are engaged as apprentices as such scheme cannot be justified on
     constitutio11al grounds.

           The respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court praying
     for directions to the Government of Haryana to appoint them to class IV
     posts on compassionate grounds, as their respective husbands, who were
G    appointed on ad hoc basis to work as Apprentice Canal Patwaris, died in
     harness. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the State
     Government filed the appeals.

            It was contended for the appellants that 'Apprentice' as defined in
     Paragraph 2.6 of Chapter II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (1953), as
H    in force in State of Haryana, not being employed in or against a substantive
                                           560
-                              STATEv. RANI DEVI

    vacancy and in view of the Government Notification dated 9.5.1972 extend-
                                                                              561

                                                                                     A
    ing the Scheme or benefit of ex-gratia payment to dependents of Govern-
    ment employees who died while in service not being applicable to ad hoc
    employees, the respondents were not entitled to appointment on compas-
    sionate grounds.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court                                            B

          HELD : I. The expression 'employee' occurring in the Government
    order dated 31.10.1985 extending the benefit or appointment to one or the
    dependents of the 'deceased employee', does not conceive casual, purely ad
    hoc employees or those \\'ho are working as apprentices. The respective
    husbands of the respondents worked as Apprentice Canal Patwaris. The
                                                                                     c
    High Court erred in issuing directions for appointment of respondents on
,   compassionate grounds. The orders of the High Court are set aside.
                                                            [556-D; 565·F]
          2. The scheme regarding appointment on compassionate grounds               D
    cannot be extended to casual, ad hoc employees, including those who arc
    \Vorking as apprentices as such scheme cannot be justified on constitution-
    al grounds. [565-F-G]

          3.1. Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the
    equality clause under Article 14 or the Constitution and can be upheld if        E
    such appointees can be held to form a class by themselves, otherwise any
    such appointment merely on the ground that the person concerned hap-
    pens to be a dependent of an ex- employee of the State Government or the
    Central Government shall be violative or Articles 14 and 16 or the Con-
    stitution. But if an employee dies while in service then according to the
    rules framed by the Central Government or the State Government to                F
    appoint one or the dependents shall not be violative or Articles 14 and 16
    because it is to mitigate the hardship due to the death or the bread earner
    of the family. It is, therefore, necessary for the authorities to frame rules,
    regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test
    of Articles 14 and 16. [564-B-C; 565-E)                                          G
         Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1989) SC
    1976 = [1989) 4 sec 468, relied on.

          3.2. Right to appointment on compassionate grounds flows on basis
    of rules, regulations or some administrative order issued in the form of H
A
    562                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

    resolution on Office memorandum. While framing rules in respect of
                                                                                   -
    appointment on compassionate grounds the authorities have to be con-
    scious of the fact that this right which is being extended to a dependent of
    the deceased employee is an exception to the right granted to the citizen
    under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As such there should be a
B   proper check and balance. [564-G-H; D-E]

          Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar
    & Anr., [1994] 2 SCC 718, relied on.

          Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 138
C and State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, {1994] 4 SCC 448, referred to.
          4. Appointments on compassionate grounds cannot be made aller
    lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules because
    the right to such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised
    at any time in future. [566-C]
D
          Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Hmyana & 01~., {1994] 4 SCC 138,
    relied on.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9150-51
    of 1996.
E
         From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.94 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14236 of 1994.

          Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Appellants.

         Jatinder Sharma, Anil Kumar Gupta-II, Panna Lal Syngal, Franklin          ;
F
    David and D.B. Vohra for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.
G          These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana for
    setting aside the orders passed on two writ petitions filed by respondents
    Rani Devi and Anguri Devi, directing the appellant-State to appoint the
    said respondents against class-IV posts on compassionate grounds in view
    of the fact that their respective husband died while working as Apprentice
H   Canal Patwaris. The husband of respondent Rani Devi worked as Appren-
-                      STATE v. RANI DEVI [N.P. SINGH, J.]

    tice Canal Patwaii from 25.8.1987 to 25.2.89, whereas the husband of A
                                                                             563


    respondent Anguri Devi worked as Apprentice Canal patwari from
,   15.7.1992 to :i..6.1993.

          There is no dispute that the husband of the two respondents had
    been appointed on ad-hoc basis as Apprentice Canal Patwaris. According
    to the State Government, in this background there is no question of issuing    B
    any direction in respect of appointments of the respondents who are the
    \Vidows on compassionate grounds. In this connection, our attention was
     drawn to the Punjab Civil Services Rules which we are informed are in
     force even in the State of Haryana. Paragraph 2.6. of Chapter II defines
     'Apprentice' to mean a person deputed for training in a trade or bu.<iness    C
    with a vie\v to employment in Government service, \vho draws pay at
      monthly rates from the Government during such training, but is not
      employed in or against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of the depart-
      ment. Reference was also made to the decision of the State Government
      which was notified on 9.5.1972 saying that the scheme of benefit of ex-gratia D
      payment to the dependent of the employees of the Haryana Government
      who died while in service was not applicable to ad-hoc employees. The
    ' stand of the State is that any Scheme in respect of payment of ex-gratia
      grant or giving an appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased
      Government employee is not applicable to casual, ad-hoc employees or
      e_mployees who are just apprentices.                                          E

           It appears that on 31.10.1985, a communication was issued by the
    State Government to all concerned saying that Government had intro-
    duced payment of ex-gratia grant for the welfare of the 'deceased Govern-
    ment employees' in order to assist the members of the bereaved family for      F
    settling themselves. The scheme also conceived giving employment to one
    of the dependents of the deceased employee. According to the State, the
    expression 'employee' used in the aforesaid communication shall not in-
    clude causal, ad-hoc employee or a person who has been appointed a< an
    Apprentice.
                                                                                   G
          The question of appointment of one of the dependants of an
    employee of the State or Central Government who dies while in service has
    of late assumed importance and subject matter of controversy before
    different courts. This Court in the case of Snit. Sushn1a Gosain & Ors. v.
    Union of India & Ors., AIR (1989) SC 1976 = [1989] 4 SCC 468 after H
   564                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A referring to the Government Memorandum under which the appointment
                                                                                 -
  on compassionate ground was being claimed observed that the purpose of
  providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the
  hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family. It cannot be
  disputed that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the
B equality clause under Article 14 and can be upheld if such appointees can
  be held to form a class by themselves, otherwise any such appointment
  merely on the ground that the person concerned happens to be a depen-
  dant of an ex-employee of the State Government or the Central Govern-
  ment shall be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But this
  Court has held that if an employee dies while in service then according to
C rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government to
  appoint one of the dependants shall not be violative of Article 14 and 16
  of the Constitution because it is to mitigate the hardship due to the death
  of the bread earner of the family and sudden misery faced by the members
  of the family of such employee who had served the Central Government
D or the State Government. It appears that this benefit has also been ex-
  tended to the employees of the authorities which can be held lo be a State
  within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. But while framing any
  rule in respect of appointment on compassionate ground the authorities
  have to be conscious of the fact that this right which is being extended to
E a dependent of the deceased employee is an exception to the right granted
  to the citizen under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As such there
  should be a proper check and balance. Of late, it appears the right to be
  appointed on compassionate ground is being claimed as a right to in-
  heritance irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased
  employee. In many cases, applications for appointments on compassionate
F grounds are being made even after 10-15 years because on the date of the
  death of the employee the applicant was a minor and could not have been
  appointed. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha
  Ramcha11dra Ambedkar & A11r., [1994] 2 SCC 718, this Court pointed out
  that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue diree-
0 lions on sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compas-
  sionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not
  cover and contemplate such appointments. Any such right for appointment
   on compassionate ground flows on basis of rules, regulations or some
   administrative order issued in the form of resolutiqn or office memorandum.
H In the case of Umeslz Kumar Nagpal v. State of Hmya11a & Ors., [1994] 4
                    STATEv. RANIDEVI[N.P.SINGH,J.]                          565

sec 138, it was impressed that as a rule, appointments in public services A
should be made strictly on basis of open invitation of applications and
merit. The appointment on compassionate ground was an exception to the
aforesaid rule taking into consideration the fact of the death of the
employee while in service and leaving his family without any means of
livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to tide over
                                                                                   B
sudden crisis. However, such appointments on compassionate grounds
have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative
instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family
of the deceased. In the case of State of Ha1yana v. Naresh Kumar Bali,
[1994] 4 SCC 448, on an appeal filed by State of Haryana, a 3-Judges Bench
of this Court deprecated the directions given by the High Court to appoint         c
the respondent of the said case against a post of an Inspector and it was
observed that the the High Court should have merely directed considera-
tion of the claim of the said respondent in accordance with rules.

      It need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned            D
for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the ground that he
was a dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be
upheld on the touch stone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. But this
Court has upheld this claim as reasonable and permissible on the basis of
sudden 'crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the         E
State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities
to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can
stand the test of Articles 14 and 16.


      So far the facts of the present case are concerned, we fail to ap- F
preciate as to how the High Court directed that the respondents aforesaid
be appointed on compassionate ground when admittedly the respective
husbands of the respondents were working as Apprentice Canal Patwaris
for the periods mentioned above. If the scheme regarding appointment on
compassionate ground is extended to all sorts of casual, ad-hoc employees
including those who are working as Apprentices, then such scheme cannot G
be justified on. constitutional grounds. It need not be pointed out that
appointments on compassionate grounds, are made as a n1atter, of course,
without even requiring the person concerned to face any Selection Com-
mittee . .In th case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Hwyana & Ors.,
(supra) it was said :                                                     H
    566                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A               "It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court
            endorses the policy of the State Government to make compas-
            sionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the
            deceased employees and above Class III and IV. It is unnecessary
            to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the
            dependant of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to
B           accept the post offered, he is free not lo do so. The post is not
            offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the
             economic calamity."

    It was also impressed that appointments on compassionate ground cannot
C be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the
    rules because the right to such employment is not a vested right which can
    be exercised at any time in future.

        According to us, when the aforesaid Government Order dated
  31.10.1985 extends the benefit of appointment to one of the dependants of
D the 'deceased employee' the expression 'employee' does not conceive
  causal or purely ad-hoc employee or those who are working as apprentices.
  Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders on the two
  writ petitions, filed on behalf of the respondents are set aside. In the facts
  and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

    R.P.                                                      Appeals allowed.