Page 1

REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6348 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.13957/2010)

MGB GRAMIN BANK                                   Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

CHAKRAWARTI SINGH                             Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  impugned  

judgment  and  order  dated  27.1.2010  passed  by  the  Division  

Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.Civil  

Special  Appeal  (Writ)No.798 of  2009 upholding the  judgment  

and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2009 passed in  

Writ Petition No.7869 of 2008 by which the respondent had been  

directed  to  be  appointed  under  a  scheme  for  compassionate  

appointment.   

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

Page 2

A. Father of the respondent who was working as a Class III  

employee with the appellant  Bank died on 19.4.2006 while  in  

harness.  The respondent applied for compassionate appointment  

on 12.5.2006.   

B. During  the  pendency  of  the  application  filed  by  the  

respondent, a new scheme dated 12.6.2006 came into force with  

effect  from  6.10.2006.   Clause  14  thereof  provides  that  all  

applications pending on the date of commencement of the scheme  

shall be considered for grant of ex-gratia payment to the family  

instead of compassionate appointment.   

C. As the appointment on compassionate ground was denied  

to the respondent, he preferred the writ petition before the High  

Court  and the  learned Single  Judge took the  view that  as  the  

cause of action had arisen prior to the commencement of the new  

scheme, therefore, the case was to be considered as per the then  

existing  scheme  i.e.  the  1983  Scheme  which  provided  for  

compassionate  appointment  and  not  for  grant  of  ex-gratia  

payment.  The Court directed the appellant not only to consider  

the  case  of  appointment  of  the  respondent  on  compassionate  

grounds but rather directed the appellant to appoint him.   

2

Page 3

D. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order by filing  

the  Special  Appeal  which  has  been  dismissed  vide  impugned  

judgment  and  order  dated  27.1.2010  concurring  with  the  

judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.

Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly ad-

hering to the mandatory requirements of  Articles 14 and 16 of  the  

Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassion-

ate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial con-

straints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere  

death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the fam-

ily  to  claim compassionate  employment.  The Competent  Authority  

has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased  

employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employ-

ment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be  

offered to  the eligible  member  of  the family.  More  so,  the person  

claiming such appointment must  possess required eligibility for the  

post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that com-

3

Page 4

passionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is  

not a vested right.

The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpreta-

tion beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds.  

Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately  

to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case  

pending for years.  

6. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana & Ors., (1994)  

4 SCC 138, this Court has considered the nature of the right which a  

dependant  can  claim  while  seeking  employment  on  compassionate  

ground. The Court observed as under:–

“The whole object of granting compassionate em- ployment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over   the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a mem- ber of such family a post much less a post for post   held by the deceased.…. The exception to the rule   made in favour of the family of the deceased em- ployee is in consideration of the services rendered   by  him and  the  legitimate  expectations,  and  the   change in the status and affairs of the family en- gendered by the erstwhile employment which are   suddenly upturned.…. The only ground which can   justify  compassionate  employment  is  the  penuri- ous condition of the deceased’s family. The con- sideration  for  such employment  is  not  a  vested   right. The object being to enable the family to get   over the financial crisis.”            (Emphasis added)

4

Page 5

7. An ‘ameliorating relief’ should not be taken as opening an al-

ternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Furthermore, an  

application  made  at  a  belated  stage  cannot  be  entertained  for  the  

reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment  

stands evaporated.

8. The Courts  and  the  Tribunals  cannot  confer  benediction  im-

pelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on com-

passionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did  

not cover and contemplate such appointments.

9. In  A. Umarani v Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors.,  

AIR 2004 SC 4504, while dealing with the issue, this Court held that  

even the Supreme Court should not exercise the extraordinary juris-

diction under Article 142 issuing a direction to give compassionate  

appointment in contravention of the provisions of the Scheme/Rules  

etc., as the provisions have to be complied with mandatorily and any  

appointment given or ordered to be given in violation of the scheme  

would be illegal.

10. The word ‘vested’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th  

Edition) at page 1563, as ‘vested’, Fixed; accrued; settled; absolute;  

complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute own-

5

Page 6

ership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition pre-

cedent. Rights are ‘vested’ when right to enjoyment, present or pro-

spective, has become property of some particular person or persons as  

present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent in-

terest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws,  

does not constitute vested rights.  

11. In Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition)  

at page 1397, ‘vested’ is defined as Law held by a tenure subject to no  

contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; ves-

ted interest. (Vide: Bibi Sayeeda v State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 516;  

and J.S. Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC 570)

Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and  

it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Ves-

ted right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless  

an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy de-

cision/  scheme could be changed. (Vide:  Kuldip Singh v Govern-

ment, NCT Delhi AIR 2006 SC 2652)

12. A  scheme  containing  an  in  pari  materia clause,  as  is  

involved in this case was considered by this Court in State Bank  

of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661. Clause 14  

6

Page 7

of  the  said  Scheme  is  verbatim  to  clause  14  of  the  scheme  

involved herein, which reads as under:

“14. Date of effect of the scheme and disposal of  pending applications:

The Scheme will come into force with effect from  the date it is approved by the Board of Directors.  Applications  pending  under  the  Compasionate  Appointment Scheme as on the date on which this  new  Scheme  is  approved  by  the  Board  will  be  dealt with in accordance with Scheme for payment  of ex-gratia lump sum amount provided they fulfill  all the terms and conditions of this scheme.”

13. The  Court  considered  various  aspects  of  service  

jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the appointment  

on compassionate ground may not be  claimed as a matter of right  

nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment,  

rather  it  depends on various  other  circumstances  i.e.  eligibility  

and financial conditions of the family, etc., the application has to  

be   considered  in  accordance  with  the  scheme.   In  case  the  

Scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim  

that his case is to be considered as per the Scheme existing on the  

date the cause of action had arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on  

the post.  In State Bank of India & Anr. (supra), this Court held  

that in such a situation, the case under the new Scheme has to be  

7

Page 8

considered.

14. In view of the above position, the reasoning given by the  

learned  Single  Judge  as  well  as  by  the  Division  Bench  is  not  

sustainable  in the eyes of law.  The appeal  is  allowed and the  

impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside.

15. The  respondent  may  apply  for  consideration  of  his  case  

under the new Scheme and the appellant shall consider his case  

strictly  in  accordance  with  clause  14  of  the  said  new Scheme  

within  a  period of  three  months  from the date  of  receiving of  

application.

With these observations, appeal stands disposed of.

………….......................J. [ DR. B.S. CHAUHAN ]

NEW DELHI ………….......................J. AUGUST 7, 2013 [ S.A. BOBDE ]

8