Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.  7802   of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4772 of 2017)

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION.    

.... Appellant(s) Versus

DANISH KHAN   

…. Respondent (s) With  

Civil Appeal No. 7803  of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13139 of 2017)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for

short,  ‘the  Corporation’)  has  filed  the  above  Appeal

aggrieved by the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court of

Judicature,  Jaipur Bench by which Regulation 4(3) of  the

Rajasthan  State  Road  Transport  Corporation

Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 (for short,

‘the Regulations’) has been declared as violative of Article

14 of the Constitution of India.   

1

2. The  Respondent’s  father  Mohd.  Shahid  who  was

working as a Helper in the Appellant-Corporation died in a

motor  accident.   He  was  travelling  in  a  bus  of  the

Appellant-Corporation which collided with another bus.  A

claim  was  made  by  the  Respondent  before  the  Motor

Accident  Claim  Tribunal,  Tonk  (for  short,  ‘the  Tribunal’)

under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(for short, ‘the Act’).  An amount of Rs.1,35,50,000/- was

claimed,  but  the  Tribunal  awarded  a  compensation  of

Rs.22,95,775/-.

3. The Respondent made a representation to the Chief

Manager  of  the  Appellant-Corporation  seeking

compassionate  appointment.     The  request  for

compassionate appointment  was rejected on the ground

that the Respondent was not entitled in light of Regulation

4(3) of the Regulations.  Dissatisfied with the rejection of

the  request  for  compassionate  appointment,  the

Respondent  filed  a  Writ  Petition  in  the  High  Court

challenging the constitutionality of  Regulation 4(3).   The

High Court allowed the Writ Petition by a judgment dated

29.08.2016  on  the  ground  that  Regulation  4(3)  of  the

2 | P a g e

Regulations is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution.   

4. The High Court held that the object of compassionate

appointment  is  to  mitigate  the  hardship  of  the  family

members  of  the  bread-winner  and  for  that  reason

compassionate  appointment  should  be  provided  to  the

family  in  distress.   According  to  Regulation  4(3)  of  the

Regulations,  claim  for  both  compassionate  appointment

and compensation under the Act cannot be made against

the  Corporation  in  case  of  death  of  an  employee  while

travelling  in  the  vehicle  of  the  Appellant-Corporation.

Regulation 4(3)  was found to  be discriminatory  because

compassionate  appointment  can  be  provided  to  an

employee  who  dies  in  an  accident  while  travelling  in  a

vehicle not belonging to the Corporation though he had

claimed compensation either from the owner of the vehicle

or the insurance company, under the Act.

5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note

of Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations which is as follows:

“On  the  occasion  of  death  of  any  employee  of  the

Corporation while performing his duty or a vehicular death

by the vehicle  belonging  to  the Corporation.   If  the legal

3 | P a g e

representatives  of  the  deceased  employee  seek

compensation from the Corporation by filing a claim petition

before the accident tribunal and the same is awarded or the

matter remains pending before the tribunal.  In such a case

the Legal  representatives of  the deceased employee shall

have  no  right  to  seek  appointment  on  compassionate

ground, if compensation is awarded or the matter remains

pending before the tribunal.  If on the death of an employee

of the Corporation his Legal  representative at the time of

compassionate  appointment  files  an  application  for  the

same  in  the  prescribed  format  then  the  application  for

appointment  on  compassionate  ground  has  to  be

supplemented  with  an  Affidavit  on  a  non-judicial  stamp

paper of Rs.10/-  by the legal representative that no claim

petition against the corporation has been filed before any

competent court and also that no such claim shall be filed in

the  future  and  if  in  future  even  if  any  of  the  legal

representatives files a claim petition before MACT then the

employer/  Corporation  shall  have  right  to  cancel  my

appointment  without  any notice  and that  I  won’t  file  any

case against such dismissal before any competent court.”  

6. According  to  the  said  Regulation,  the  death  of  an

employee of the Corporation while travelling in a vehicle

belonging to the Appellant-Corporation cannot give rise to

4 | P a g e

compensation  under  the  Act  as  well  as  a  claim  for

compassionate appointment in the Appellant- Corporation.

The question that arises for our consideration is whether

the High Court was right in holding that Regulation 4(3) is

discriminatory  and  violative  of  Article  14  of  the

Constitution.  The reason given by the High Court to hold it

unconstitutional  is  that  whereas  the  dependents  of  the

employee  who  died  in  an  accident  while  on  a  vehicle

owned  by  the  Appellant-Corporation  are  not  entitled  for

compassionate appointment after  claiming compensation

under Act, the dependents of an employee who died in an

accident  while  travelling  in  a  vehicle  not  owned by  the

Appellant-Corporation  are  entitled  to  get  compensation

under  the  Act  against  the  owner  of  the  vehicle  or  the

insurance company as the case may be, as well as a right

to claim compassionate appointment.   The High Court was

of the opinion that the dependents of  employees of  the

Corporation who died due to an accident while travelling in

a vehicle of the Corporation cannot be treated differently

from dependents of  employees who died in an accident

while  travelling  in  a  vehicle  not  belonging  to  the

Corporation.   

5 | P a g e

7. The  Corporation  has  carved  out  two  classes  of

dependents  of  the  deceased  employees  in  respect  of

claims for compassionate appointment.  The reason for the

disqualification  of  the  dependents  of  an  employee  who

died in an accident involving the vehicle of the Corporation

is to avoid extra burden on the Appellant- Corporation.  In

such  cases,  the  Appellant-  Corporation  has  to  pay  the

compensation  under  the  Act  and  also  to  provide

compassionate  appointment  to  the  dependents  of  the

deceased employee.  In a case where the vehicle of the

Appellant- Corporation is not involved in the accident, the

compensation  under  the  Act  is  not  the  liability  of  the

Appellant-  Corporation.   It  cannot  be  said  that  the

dependents of an employee who claim both compensation

under the Act and compassionate appointment from the

Appellant-  Corporation  are  on  the  same  footing  as  the

dependents of the deceased employee whose claim under

the Act against a private owner or an insurance company,

and  compassionate  appointment  from  Appellant-

Corporation.   

8. The dependents of a deceased employee who claim

compensation  from  the  Corporation  under  the  Act  and

6 | P a g e

compassionate  appointment  from  the  Appellant-

Corporation from a separate class.  It is well-settled that

though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid

reasonable  classification  for  the  purposes  of  legislation.

When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed

on the ground that it  contravenes Article 14, its validity

can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is

that the classification on which it is founded must be based

on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or

things grouped together from others left out of the group;

and the second test is that the differentia in question must

have  a  reasonable  relation  to  the  object  sought  to  be

achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question.1

9. Having  held  that  the  classification  of  the  two

categories  of  dependents  of  deceased  employees  is

reasonable, what remains to be examined is whether there

is a rationale nexus of the classification with the objective

sought  to  be  achieved  by  the  Regulations  4(3).    The

intention with which Regulation 4(3) is made is to obviate

the liability of the Corporation in payment of compensation

under the Act and to provide compassionate appointment

to  the same person.   We find there  is  a  rational  nexus 1 State of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao, 1968 SCR (1) 407

7 | P a g e

between the basis of classification and the object sought to

be achieved by the Regulation.  

10. It  is  useful  to  refer  to  a  judgment  of  this  Court  in

National  Insurance  Company  Limited  v.  Rekhaben

and Others.2   The question that arose for consideration

of this Court related to the deduction of salary that was

earned by the claimant therein after being appointed on

compassionate  grounds  while  calculating  the

compensation payable to her under the Act for the death

of  her  husband.   It  was held  that  the salary  earned by

compassionate appointment cannot be deducted from the

compensation which the claimant is entitled under the Act.

However, it was made clear that the salary which flowed

from the compassionate appointment that was provided by

the tortfeasor was liable to be deducted if the employer

was the owner of the offending vehicle and thus liable to

pay  compensation  under  the  Act.    In  other  words,  the

employer  who has  provided compassionate  appointment

can claim deduction of the salary of the dependent while

calculating if he is liable to pay compensation under the

Act, being the owner of the offending vehicle.  

2 (2017) 13 SCC 547

8 | P a g e

11. The two categories of dependents i.e. dependents of

employees who have died in an accident while travelling in

a vehicle belonging to the Corporation and dependents of

the employees who died while travelling in a vehicle not

belonging to the Corporation are not similarly situated in

respect  of  their  claims  against  the  Corporation.   They

cannot  be  treated  as  equals.  Therefore,  Regulation  4(3)

cannot be said to be discriminatory.  In the aforementioned

view, we are not in agreement with the judgment passed

by the High Court that Regulation 4(3) is violative of Article

14 of the Constitution.  

12. As  the  Respondent  has  received  the  compensation

under  the  Act,  he  is  not  entitled  for  compassionate

appointment under the Regulations.   

13. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court

is set aside the Appeal is allowed.     

Civil Appeal No.  7803  of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13139 of 2017)

The  application  preferred  by  the  Respondent  for

compassionate appointment was rejected by the Corporation

as  being  not  maintainable  under  Regulation  4(3)  of  the

9 | P a g e

Regulations, due to the fact that the Respondent has filed a

claim petition under the Act.  The High Court allowed the Writ

Petition as being covered by a judgment in Civil Writ Petition

No.13862 of 2014.  The Appeal filed by the Corporation is

allowed in terms of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7802  of

2019 (@ S.L.P.(C) No.4772 of 2017).

                   ..…................................J.                                              [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                      ..…................................J.                                             [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, October 04, 2019  

10 | P a g e