Page 1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6224 OF 2008

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant (s)  

     VERSUS

SHASHANK GOSWAMI & ANR. Respondent(s)  

ORDER

1. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  impugned  

judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the High Court of  

Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.28535 of 2006 directing  

the appellants herein to reconsider application of respondent no.1  

on compassionate grounds.  

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that  

one Anand Kishore Gautam working as Senior Accountant in the  

office of the Accountant General, Allahabad died on 19.3.2001 in  

harness, leaving behind two sons aged about 20 and 19 years and a

Page 2

daughter,  aged  about  17  years  and  Smt.  Rashmi  Gautam,  his  

widow.  

3. Respondent  No. 1 filed an application for appointment on  

compassionate  grounds,  which  came  to  be  rejected  by  the  

appellants  on  28.1.2004  in  view  of  the  prevailing  scheme  for  

appointments  on  compassionate  grounds.  Under  the  scheme,  

vacancies could be filled up on compassionate grounds only upto  

5% of  the  cadre  strength  falling  under  direct  recruitment  quota  

during a year in Group ‘C ' and 'D ' posts.  

The scheme further lays down that the total income of the  

family  from all  sources  including  terminal  benefits  after  death,  

excluding G.P.F., should be taken into consideration. So far as the  

post of Group 'C' is concerned, the scheme provides that in case the  

family gets more than Rs.3 lakhs, the dependent of the deceased  

would not be eligible for employment on compassionate ground.  

4. Respondent No.1 could not be offered appointment on the  

ground that  excluding G.P.F.  amount,  his family had received a  

sum of Rs.4,40,908/- in addition to family pension of Rs.3,100/-  

per month granted to Mrs. Rashmi Gautam. She was entitled to get  

the said family pension at least for seven years and thereafter, the  

2

Page 3

family pension would be Rs.1,860/- per month plus  other reliefs  

admissible on pension .  

5. Aggrieved,  respondent  No.1  challenged  the  order  dated  

28.1.2004  rejecting  his  claim,  before  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal,  Allahabad vide Original Application No. 728 of 2004,  

wherein  the  Tribunal  by  judgment  and  order  dated  7.12.2005  

quashed  the  order  dated  28.1.2004  and  directed  the  appellants  

herein to reconsider the case of respondent No.1.  

6. Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  Tribunal,  the  appellants  

preferred CMWP No.28535 of 2006 before the High Court which  

has been dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.  

7. We  have  heard  Mr.  S.P.  Singh,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the appellants.  

In spite of notice, the respondents did not enter appearance.  

The appeal is pending for the last four years before this Court.  

8. Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  has  

submitted that the appellants had to consider the applications for  

employment on compassionate grounds only within the parameters  

and terms and conditions incorporated in the scheme laid down for  

that purpose. The scheme makes a person ineligible for the post in  

3

Page 4

Group 'C', in case, on the death of the incumbent on the post, the  

family gets retiral benefits/terminal benefits exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs.  

9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that  

the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the  

premises  that  the  applicant  was  dependent  on  the  deceased  

employee.  Strictly,  such  a  claim  cannot  be  upheld  on  the  

touchstone  of  Article  14  or  16  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  

However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible  

on  the  basis  of  sudden  crisis  occurring  in  the  family  of  such  

employee  who  has  served  the  State  and  dies  while  in  service.  

Appointment  on  compassionate  ground  cannot  be  claimed  as  a  

matter  of  right.  As a  rule  public  service  appointment  should be  

made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and  

merit.  The appointment on compassionate  ground is  not  another  

source  of  recruitment  but  merely  an  exception  to  the  aforesaid  

requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the  

employee while in service leaving his family without any means of  

livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get  

over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family.  

Thus,  applicant  cannot  claim  appointment  in  a  particular  

class/group of post.  Appointments on compassionate ground have  

to  be  made  in  accordance  with  the  rules,  regulations  or  

4

Page 5

administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial  

condition of the family of the deceased.

10. This Court in  Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance  

Corporation of India & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 289 while dealing  

with  a  similar  issue  i.e.  whether  payment  of  terminal/retiral  

benefits  to  the  family  can  be  taken  into  consideration,  held  as  

under:

“In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the  departmental  authorities  …..  to  take  into  consideration the amount which was being  paid as family pension to the widow of the  deceased  …..  and  other  amounts  paid  on  account of terminal benefits under the Rules.  . ….. Therefore, compassionate appointment  cannot  be  refused  on  the  ground  that  any  member of the family received the amount  admissible under the Rules.”   

11. This Court in  Punjab National Bank & Ors. V. Ashwini  

Kumar  Taneja,  (2004)  7  SCC  265,  placing  reliance  upon  the  

earlier judgment in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. V. Kunti  

Tiwari  &  Anr.,  (2004)  7  SCC  271,  held  that  compassionate  

appointment  has  to  be  made  in  accordance  with  the  Rules,  

Regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration  

the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Whereas the  

scheme provides that in case the family of the deceased gets the  

retrial/  terminal  benefits  exceeding  a  particular  ceiling,  the  

5

Page 6

dependant of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for  

compassionate appointment.

12. In Mumtaz YunusMulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra  

& Ors.,  (2008)  11 SCC 384,  this  Court  examined the scope of  

employment on compassionate ground in a similar scheme making  

the dependant of an employee ineligible for the post in case the  

family receives terminal/ retiral benefits above the sealing limit and  

held  that  the  judgment  in  Govind  Prakash (supra)  had  been  

decided without considering earlier judgments which were binding  

on the Bench.  The Court further held that that the appointment has  

to be made considering the terms of the scheme and in case the  

scheme lays down a criterion that  if  the family of  the deceased  

employee  gets  a  particular  amount  as  retiral/terminal  benefits,  

dependent  of  the deceased employee would not  be  eligible   for  

employment on compassionate grounds.

13. In the instant  case,  office of  the Comptroller  and Auditor  

General  of  India,  New Delhi  issued  a  Circular  dated  19.2.2003  

explaining the scope of such appointments.  Relevant part of the  

same reads as under:  

“With  a  view  to  bring  uniformity  in  our  offices  regarding  parameters  for  compassionate  appointment  of  a  family  member  in  the  case  of  death  of  a  

6

Page 7

government servant in harness,  it  has been  decided that the total income of the family  from all sources including terminal benefits  after  death,  excluding  G.P.F.,  should  be  taken  into  account.   If  the  resultant  computation works out to a figure less than  the parameters given below such cases can  be  considered  for  compassionate  appointment  subject   to  fulfilment  of  all  other  conditions.   The  limits  are  given  below:

Group ‘B’ Rs. Five lakhs Group ‘C’ Rs. Three lakhs Group ‘D’ Rs. Two lakhs.”   …….  

14. The case of the respondent was rejected by the appellants in  

view of the fact  that the family of the deceased Anand Kishore  

Gautam had been given the following terminal benefit excluding  

the G.P.F.

1. DCRG Rs.2,48,248.00

2. Leave Encashment    Rs.88,660.00

3. CGEIS    Rs.44,000.00

4. DLIS    Rs.60,000.00

Total:    Rs.4,40,908.00

In addition to above, family pension @ 3100/- per month has  

been authorised to Smt. Rashmi Gautam for a period of 7 years and  

thereafter @ 1860/- per month plus admissible relief on pension.

7

Page 8

15. In  view  of  the  fact  that,  in  the  instant  case  the  retiral/  

terminal benefits have been received by the family exceeding Rs.3  

lakhs,  respondent  No.1  is  not  eligible  to  be  considered  for  the  

Group 'C' post.  

16. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.  

The impugned judgments/orders stand set aside.  

..……………………….J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

.………………………..J.  (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi,  May 23, 2012

8

Page 9

9