THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusMS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI)

                        [2022] 7 S.C.R. 251                              251


          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.                              A
                                  v.
      MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE AFTER
       MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI)
                   (Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022)                       B
                       SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
         [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
      Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Married
daughter, if entitled to – Father died in harness – Mother appointed
                                                                         C
on compassionate ground, also died while in service – Elder married
daughter made application for seeking appointment on
compassionate ground, rejected – Thereafter, respondent-younger
married daughter’s application for appointment on compassionate
ground was also rejected – Tribunal directed appellants to appoint
respondent on compassionate ground – Order confirmed by High             D
Court – On appeal, held : Compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services
– In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration in view of
the fact the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is
                                                                         E
made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such
employment – Respondent being a married daughter cannot be said
to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother – Even
otherwise, she is not entitled to appointment on compassionate
ground after seven years from the death of the deceased employee         F
– Tribunal as well as the High Court committed serious error in
directing the appointment of the respondent on compassionate
ground – Order of the Tribunal and that of the High Court set aside
– Constitution of India – Arts.14, 16.
      Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Object of –              G
Held : Object of granting compassionate employment is to enable
the family to tide over the sudden crisis – Object is not to give such
family a post much less a post held by the deceased – In the present
case, appointing respondent-a married daughter on compassionate
ground will be contrary to its object.
                                                                         H
                                 251
252            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A           Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground, an
      exception – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 16 – Held : For all the
      government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all
      aspirants as mandated u/Arts. 14 and 16 – However, appointment
      on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased
      employee is an exception to the said norms – Compassionate ground
B
      is a concession and not a right.
            Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. v.
            V. Somyashree (2021) SCC Online SC 704; State of
            Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3
            SCC 653 : [2019] 2 SCR 432 – relied on.
C
            N. C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC
            617 : [2020] 3 SCR 1177; Govind Prakash Verma v.
            LIC (2005) 10 SCC 289 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
D     [2020] 3 SCR 1177               referred to             Para 5
      [2019] 2 SCR 432                relied on               Para 6.1
      (2005) 10 SCC 289               referred to             Para 6.1
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6938
      of 2022.
E
            From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2019 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.11614 of 2018.
             Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya A. Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sachin
      Patil, Advs. for the Appellants.
F           Raahul Trivedi, Ashok Trivedi, Rishabh Mishra, Riyaan Bhola,
      Mrs. Priti Jignesh Joshi, Ms. Priyanka Soni, Vaibhav Mishra, Prabodh
      Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
G           1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
      Bombay in Writ Petition No. 11614 of 2018 by which the High Court has
      dismissed the said writ petition and has confirmed the order passed by
      the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
H     “Tribunal) directing to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground,
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE                 253
    AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI) [M. R. SHAH, J.]



the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Water                A
Resources Department has preferred the present appeal.
      The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
       2.1 That the father of the respondent was in the clerical cadre
serving with the appellants. He died in harness. After his death, his wife,
i.e., mother of the respondent was appointed on compassionate ground.          B
However, she died while in service. That thereafter the elder sister of
the respondent namely Mrs. Sangita M. Thonge made application for
seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was
rejected vide communication dated 18.08.2011 on the ground that she
cannot be given the appointment on compassionate ground as she is a            C
married daughter.
      2.2 That thereafter the State Government issued a Government
Circular dated 26.02.2013, according to which the employment was to
be provided to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased
government servant on compassionate grounds.
                                                                               D
       2.3 That thereafter the respondent, a married daughter of the
deceased employee – Late Smt. Lata Maruti Vidhate applied for
appointment on compassionate ground vide representation dated
12.03.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that respondent is the
second married daughter and the application made by her elder married
sister was already rejected earlier in the year 2011. The application of       E
the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground came to be
rejected vide order dated 23.04.2013.
       2.4 The respondent filed O.A. No. 860 of 2015 before the Tribunal
approximately after a period of two years from the rejection of her
application for appointment on compassionate ground. The Tribunal vide         F
its judgment and order dated 24.03.2017 allowed the said O.A. and
directed to consider the respondent’s case for appointment on
compassionate ground. The order passed by the Tribunal has been
confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order, which
is the subject matter of present appeal before this Court.                     G
      3. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties,
the question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is:
      Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated
      hereinabove, the respondent shall be entitled to the appointment
      on compassionate ground?                                                 H
254                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A            4. The undisputed facts are that on the death of the deceased
      employee – father of the respondent, who died in harness, the mother of
      the respondent was given appointment on compassionate ground. The
      mother of the respondent died on 28.03.2006. That thereafter the elder
      married sister of the respondent made an application for appointment on
      compassionate ground, which came to be rejected in the year 2011 on
B
      the ground that being a married daughter, she cannot be said to be
      dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, she is not entitled to
      the appointment on compassionate ground. That after a period of seven
      years from the date of death of her mother, again, the respondent being
      the younger married daughter made an application for appointment on
C     compassionate ground in the year 2013. In light of the aforesaid facts,
      the question posed is required to be considered.
             5. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the
      law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the
      deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In
D     the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in
      Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704,
      had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment
      on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court in
      N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Court
      has summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on
E     compassionate ground as under:-
            (i)      that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the
                     general rule;
            (ii)     that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
F           (iii)    the appointment to any public post in the service of the
                     State has to be made on the basis of the principle in
                     accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
                     India;
            (iv)     appointment on compassionate ground can be made only
G                    on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/
                     or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
            (v)      the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the
                     application should be the basis for consideration of claim
                     for compassionate appointment.
H
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE              255
    AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI) [M. R. SHAH, J.]



      6. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on   A
the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government
vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as
mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However,
appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a
deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate
                                                                            B
ground is a concession and not a right.
       6.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs.
Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had an
occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate ground and considered the decision of this Court in the
case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC             C
289, in paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:-
      “21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash
      Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered
      subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those
      decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate   D
      appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar
      Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
      Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles which have been
      laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
      State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been subsequently            E
      followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These
      principles are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh Kumar
      Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994)
      4 SCC 138], SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)
                 “2. … As a rule, appointments in the public services       F
         should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of
         applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any
         other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments
         nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other
         procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for
         the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed    G
         strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in
         the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One
         such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee
         dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without
                                                                            H
256     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A        any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian
         consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some
         source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to
         make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide
         gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased
         who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of
B
         granting compassionate employment is thus 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 post held by the
         deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in
         harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.
C        The Government or the public authority concerned has to
         examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,
         and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of
         employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that
         a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The
         posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non- manual
D
         and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on
         compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family,
         of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.
         The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making
         an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not
E        discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such
         dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational
         nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against
         destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be
         given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be
         remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family
F
         of the deceased there are millions of other families which are
         equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in
         favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration
         of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations,
         and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered
G        by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.”
      26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus
      Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] has adopted
      the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a
      source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the
H
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE                 257
    AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI) [M. R. SHAH, J.]



      deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position   A
      of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the
      provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash
      Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005
      SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed
      that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this
                                                                               B
      Court have been taken note of in that case.”
       7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule
of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents
of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and            C
without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to
make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate       D
employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.
The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the
deceased.
      7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now      E
on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said
to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even
otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate
ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.        F
       8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of
the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court
have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the
respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed
by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to        G
consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate
ground after a number of years is unsustainable.
      9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.
                                                                               H
258              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     860 of 2015 and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order passed by the
      Tribunal are hereby quashed and set aside.
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

B
      Divya Pandey                                               Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by: Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)




C




D




E




F




G




H