Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5353 OF 2009

CHIEF ENGINEER (NAVAL WORKS) & ANR.  ... APPELLANT(S)  

               VS.

A.P. ASHA                           ... RESPONDENT(S)

     J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. The appellants have challenged the validity  

of the judgment dated 18th May, 2005, delivered by  

the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

2. By  virtue  of  the  impugned  judgment,  the  

appellants have been directed to consider the case  

of the respondent for appointment to a suitable  

post on compassionate ground as the husband of the  

respondent had died in harness.

3. After the death of her husband in the year  

1999,  the  respondent  made  a  request  to  the  

appellants/  employers  to  consider  her  case  for  

appointment on compassionate ground.

1

Page 2

4. There is a policy for making an appointment  

on  compassionate  grounds  and  as  per  the  said  

policy, according to the appellants, the claimants,  

who  are  more  deserving  for  appointment  on  

compassionate grounds, are given appointment and  

therefore, though the case of the respondent was  

considered, she could not be appointed as there  

were  claimants  who  were  more  needy  than  the  

respondent. In the circumstances, the respondent  

had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal  

and the Tribunal directed the appellants to again  

consider  the  case  of  the  respondent  for  

appointment  on  compassionate  ground.  Being  

aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the  

appellants had filed a writ petition before the  

High  Court,  which  has  been  dismissed  and  

therefore, this appeal.

5. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the  

respondent  was  not  given  appointment  on  

compassionate  ground  as  per  the  policy  of  the  

appellants  because,  as  per  the  policy,  more  

deserving  candidates  were  available  for  giving  

appointment  on  the  compassionate  ground.  In  the  

2

Page 3

circumstances,  according  to  the  appellants,  the  

direction was not justifiable as the case of the  

respondent had already been considered thrice but  

every  time  the  persons  who  were  more  deserving  

were appointed on compassionate ground.

6. In our opinion, the respondent has no right  

to  be  appointed  on  compassionate  ground  on  the  

death of her husband if there is somebody more  

needy than the respondent.  It is clear from the  

record that the policy of the appellants has been  

strictly  adhered  to  in  the  matter  of  giving  

appointment on compassionate ground.

7. In  the  circumstances,  in  our  opinion,  the  

Tribunal was not right in giving the direction to  

the  appellants  to  consider  the  case  of  the  

respondent  again  and  again,  especially when  the  

case of the respondent had been duly considered  

and had been rejected, in view of the fact that  

more  deserving  claimants  were  available  at  the  

relevant time. We are, therefore, of the view that  

the High Court committed an error by upholding the  

order of the Tribunal.   

8. The  impugned  judgment  passed  by  the  High  

3

Page 4

Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed with  

no order as to costs.

       ..............J.

[ANIL R. DAVE]

..............J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

New Delhi; 15th October, 2015.

4