Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.       9049            OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19871 of 2009)

Director General of Posts & Ors.  …  

Appellant

Versus

K. Chandrashekar Rao  … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.      9050              OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19872 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        9051            OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21910 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        9053            OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23211 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.       9054             OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23212 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        9055            OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23213 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.     9056               OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23214 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.      9057            OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25550 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.       9058             OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25551 of 2009)

1

Page 2

CIVIL APPEAL NO.           9059         OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25553 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        9060            OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25559 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.      9061              OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.27784 of 2009)

J U D G M E N T

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Leave granted in all the SLPs.    

2. By this common judgment we shall dispose of all the  

above mentioned appeals which are directed against the  

judgments  of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at  

Hyderabad passed on different dates vide which the Court,  

while  relying  upon  its  judgment  dated  23rd July,  2008  

passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 15820/2008, has dismissed  

the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  concerned  government  

authority.

3. Thus, it is not necessary for us to notice the facts of  

each appeal  separately.   Though,  the judgments  are of  

different  dates,  they  are  primarily  based  upon  the  2

Page 3

judgment of the High Court dated 23rdJuly, 2008. For the  

purpose of convenience, we would be referring to the facts  

of SLP(C) No.19871/2009.

FACTS:

4. The Department of Personnel and Training (for short  

‘DoPT’),  Ministry  of  Personnel,  Public  Grievances  and  

Pension,  Government  of  India,  issued  a  memorandum  

dated  9th October,  1998  containing  the  scheme  for  

compassionate  appointment  with  an  object  to  give  a  

source of employment to the dependent family members  

of the government servant dying in harness or one who  

has  retired  on  medical  grounds.   This  scheme  was  

declared on 9th October, 1998.  The scheme stipulated that  

the  compassionate  appointment  could  be  made  upto  a  

maximum of  5  per  cent  of  the  vacancies  falling  under  

Direct Recruitment Quota in Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ post.

5. According  to  the  appellants,  the  scheme  of  

compassionate  appointment  is  always  treated  as  an  

exception to the general rule of recruitment.   

3

Page 4

6. The father of the respondent was employed with the  

appellants in a Group ‘D’ post.  Unfortunately, the father  

of the respondent died on 19th April, 2000.

7. On  16th  May,  2001,  the  DoPT  issued  an  office  

memorandum in view of the policy of the Government of  

India that fresh recruitment should be limited to one per  

cent of the total strength of civilian staff.  The basis for the  

same appeared to be that about three per cent of the staff  

retired every year and thus, the reduction in manpower  

would reduce to 2% p.a. if fresh recruitment is limited to  

1% p.a.  This would achieve a deduction of ten percent in  

five  years.   It  was  decided  that  each  Ministry  and  

Department  would  formulate  an  Annual  Direct  

Recruitment  Plan  through  the  mechanism  of  Screening  

Committee.  Para 2.2 of this memorandum provided that  

while  preparing  the  Annual  Recruitment  Plan,  the  

concerned Screening Committee was to ensure that the  

direct recruitment did not exceed one per cent of the total  

sanctioned strength of the Department.  Since three per  

cent of the staff retired every year, this would translate  

only  to  one-third  of  the  Direct  Recruitment  vacancies  

4

Page 5

occurring in each year being filled.  Thus, the recruitment  

would be limited to filling one-third  of  the vacancies  of  

Direct Recruitment arising in the year, subject to a further  

ceiling, that it does not exceed one percent of the total  

sanctioned strength of the Department.  In terms of Para  

2.4 of  the memorandum,  it  was further  stated that  the  

vacancies so cleared by the Screening Committee will be  

filled up by applying rules for reservation, handicapped,  

compassionate quota therein.  

8. However,  the  Special  Circle  Relaxation  Committee,  

approved the names of the candidates in the category of  

compassionate appointment on the basis of 5 per cent of  

the existing vacancies occurring in the year 2000, 2001  

and 2002.  In face of the memorandum dated 16thMay,  

2001,  on  or  about  13th March,  2002,  69  names  were  

approved.   On  4th July,  2002,  the  DoPT  issued  a  

clarificatory memorandum that the five per cent quota for  

compassionate appointment was to be calculated on the  

basis of direct recruitment vacancies finally cleared by the  

Screening  Committee  and not  on the  basis  of  the total  

vacancies occurring in the Department.  The respondent,  

5

Page 6

on 6th August, 2002 was communicated the intimation with  

regard  to  the  approval  of  his  name for  appointment  to  

Group ‘D’ post, which he joined on 22nd August, 2002.

9. It is the case of the appellants now that the mistake  

of  appointment  in  excess  of  the  prescribed  quota  was  

detected and vide letter  dated 12th March,  2003 it  was  

communicated  that  it  was  not  possible  to  adjust  the  

candidates who were recommended in excess of the quota  

because  the  recommendation  for  compassionate  

appointment was to be made on the basis of five per cent  

of  the  approved  vacancies  cleared  by  the  Screening  

Committee.  In furtherance to this, a decision was taken  

on 17th May, 2004 to select only the most indigent persons  

against  the  available  vacancies  within  the  prescribed  

ceiling of 5 per cent of the vacancies finally cleared by the  

Screening  Committee.   In  furtherance  to  the  decision  

taken  by  the  competent  authority,  a  meeting  of  the  

Special  Circle  Relaxation  Committee  was  convened  and  

appointment of total 21 candidates on the basis of five per  

cent  approved  vacancies  cleared  by  the  Screening  

Committee was approved.  The remaining 48 candidates  

6

Page 7

were  terminated/not  permitted  to  continue/dropped  on  

12th October, 2004.  On 12th January, 2005, the appellants  

noticed  that  the  candidates,  whose  names  had  been  

cleared for compassionate appointment on 13-15th March,  

2002 or in the year 2002 were still  temporary servants.  

48 names were in excess of the quota, therefore, a notice  

of termination under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services  

(Temporary  Services)  Rules,  1965  was  issued  and  as  

already  noticed,  the  services  of  the  48  persons,  whose  

names were recommended in excess of the quota, were  

terminated.  These appointees, including the respondent  

in  the  present  appeal,  challenged  the  said  order  of  

termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for  

short ‘CAT’).  The CAT granted an interim stay during the  

pendency of the hearing of the application vide its order  

dated  8th February,  2005.   The  present  appellants  also  

point  out  that  two  other  applications,  being  OA  No.  

434/2005 and OA No. 761/2005 filed by similarly situated  

employees, came to be dismissed vide orders of the CAT  

dated 20th October, 2005 and 19th April, 2007 respectively.

7

Page 8

10. The application filed by the present respondent came  

up  before  the  CAT  for  hearing  on  31st October,  2007.  

While allowing the application of the respondent, the CAT  

held  that  the  appointment  of  the  respondent-applicant  

before it,  was not liable to be terminated  inter alia,  but  

primarily for the following reasons:-

“17.   Therefore,  it  has  been proved and  established  that  the  instructions  dated  16.05.2001  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  compassionate appointment, frustrate the  very  object  of  the  scheme  for  compassionate appointment.  The scheme  for  compassionate  appointment  is  a  rehabilitation  scheme.   Therefore,  the  subsequent  instructions,  the  application/operation  of  which  frustrates  the very object of the scheme or make the  scheme not practically applicable, cannot  be  said  to  be  valid  instruction(s).  Therefore,  even  if  there  had  been  any  instructions of 2001 to consider the cases  for  compassionate  appointment  to  the  extent  of  5% of  the  approved  vacancies  cleared  by  the  screening  committee  (which  could  not  be  produced  by  the  respondents before us),  any appointment  made  without  following  such  instructions  cannot  be  said  to  be  irregular  appointment.   More  over,  the  administration  should  be  more  particular  while  considering  the  cases  of  compassionate  appointment  so  that  the  persons appointed will  not be terminated  for any irregularity in the appointment.  In  no  case,  the  family  which  has  been  provided with compassionate appointment  

8

Page 9

to  enable  the  family  to  meet  with  the  indigent  conditions  caused  due  to  the  death  of  the  employee  would  be  put  to  distress  again  due  to  the  fault  of  the  administration.   We  may,  at  the  cost  of  repetition, mention that (i) when the very  instruction dated 16.05.2001 in so far as it  relates  to  compassionate  appointment,  has been proved to be frustrating the very  object  of  the  scheme  which  is  a  rehabilitation  scheme,  even  if  any  appointment  is  made  without  following  such instruction, cannot or does not make  the  appointment  irregular.   (ii)  The  applicants  who  have  been  given  appointment  against  2000  vacancies  following the instructions/scheme of 1998,  their  appointments  do  not,  in  any  way,  come  within  the  purview  of  the  DOPT  instructions  of  2001.   Therefore,  their  appointments can in no way be terminated  by applying the instructions of 2001.  (iii)  All  the  applicants  who  were  considered  and  approved  and  were  given  compassionate  appointments  in  2002  cannot  be  terminated  after  they  have  worked  for  a  considerable  period.   More  particularly,  when  the  scheme  is  a  rehabilitation  scheme  and  the  2001  instructions  in  so  far  it  relates  to  compassionate  appointments  frustrates  the very object of the scheme and make  the  scheme  practically  inapplicable  as  mentioned vide instructions cannot be said  to  be  valid.   For  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  it  will  not  be  out  of  place  to  mention that in the case of Union of India  and  Others   vs.   K.P.  Tiwari  [2003  SCC  (L&S)  1233]  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  declined to interfere with the appointment  made 5 years back and said that:

9

Page 10

“It is unnecessary in the present case  to examine either questions of law or  fact arising in the matter. Suffice to  say  that  the  respondent  was  appointment and has been in service  for more than five years.  It would not  be appropriate to disturb that state of  affairs  by  making  any  other  order  resulting in uprooting the respondent  from his livelihood.”

Since  the  appropriate  instructions  dated  14.06.2006  have  already  been  issued  to  consider  the  cases  for  compassionate  appointment to the extent of 5% of total  vacancies  against  the  direct  recruitment  quota,  no  further  order  is  necessary  to  that effect.  Therefore, such appointment  which is made without following the said  instructions cannot be terminated for the  reasons mentioned above. 18. Therefore,  in  view  of  the  above  discussion,  we hold that the respondents  are not  justified in  issuing the impugned  notice  of  termination/order  of  notice  to  delete the names of  the applicants  from  the  list  of  approved  candidates.   The  applicants  are  entitled  to  continue  in  service on the strength of the appointment  given to them.  We, therefore, quash and  set  aside  the  impugned  orders/notices  issued  by  the  respondents  in  all  the  applications.  Interim order granted by this  Tribunal stands absolute.”

11. Being   aggrieved   from   the   judgment   of   the  

Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C)  

No. 20655/2008 before the High Court.  The High Court by  

10

Page 11

that  time had already disposed of  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.  

15820  of  2008  filed  by  the  Government  Department  

entitled Superintendent of Post Offices, Anantpur Division,  

Anantpur   vs.  R.S. Madan Lal vide its judgment dated 23rd  

July, 2008, the subject matter in SLP(C) No. 19872/2009  

which  is  also  listed  along  with  the  present  bunch  of  

matters.   While the High Court upheld the order of the  

CAT,  it  not  only  accepted  its  reasoning  but  in  addition  

thereto held as under:-

“We do not find any error in the above  reasoning  adopted by  the  Tribunal.  The  respondent  and  others  who  were  given  appointments against vacancies arising in  2000  ignoring  the  scheme-1998  cannot  be removed from service, pursuant to the  instructions  issued  in  2001.   Therefore,  the candidates who were considered and  given  compassionate  appointment  in  2002  cannot  be  removed  from  service.  At  this  stage,  it  is  pat  (sic-apt)  to  note  that  the  Government  taking  into  consideration the difficulties being faced  by various Ministries in implementing the  scheme  for  compassionate  appointment  issued  certain  instructions  in  memo  dated,  14.6.2006.   Para-3  of  the  said  instructions reads thus:

“On a demand raised by Staff Side in  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  National Council (JCM) for review of  the  compassionate  appointment  policy, the matter has been carefully  

11

Page 12

examined  and  taking  into  account  the  fact  that  the  reduction  in  the  number  of  vacancies  for  Group  ‘C’  and  ‘D’  posts  (excluding  technical  pots)  that  have arisen in  the year.  Total vacancies available for making  direct  recruitment  would  be  calculated  by  deducting  the  vacancies to be filled on the basis of  compassionate  appointment  form  the  vacancies  available  for  direct  recruitment  in  terms  of  existing  orders on optimization.”

From  the  above,  it  is  clear  that  the  vacancies  meant  for  direct  recruitment  shall  have  to  be  calculated  only  after  earmarking  the  vacancies  required  for  compassionate  appointment.   In  words,  the  direct  recruitment  vacancies  shall  have to be arrived at only after deducting  the vacancies required for compassionate  appointment  under  the  scheme.   The  Tribunal while allowing the O.As, has also  taken  into  consideration,  the  aforementioned instructions issued by the  Government of India.

Admittedly, the notice of termination  was  issued on 24.11.2005,  i.e.,  prior  to  the  instructions  of  the  Government  of  India,  dated  14.6.2006.   Therefore,  the  authorities have to reconsider the matter  in  the  light  of  the  instructions  issued  I  memo, dated 14.5.2006.  The Tribunal on  a  careful  consideration  of  the  relevant  material  on  record  has  rightly  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  persons  appointment in the year 2002 cannot be  terminated  from  service.   We  find  no  error  in  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  

12

Page 13

warranting interference by this  Court  in  exercise of power of judicial review under  Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition fails and the same  is accordingly dismissed, at the admission  stage.  No costs.”

12. As is clear from the above factual matrix of the case  

that the issue revolves around the scope,  interpretation  

and applicability of the office memorandums issued by the  

DoPT and other concerned authorities from time to time.

13. The  Ministry  of  Personnel,  Public  Grievances  and  

Pension, Government of India had issued a circular on 9th  

October, 1998 declaring its policy in the form of a Scheme  

for  Compassionate  appointment  under  the  Central  

Government.   This Scheme provided that the policy shall  

be  applicable  to  the  family  members  of  a  government  

servant  who  dies  while  in  service  including  death  by  

suicide or  is  retired on medical  grounds,  but  subject  to  

fulfilment  of  the  conditions  stated  therein.    It  is  not  

necessary for us to go into other clauses of this Scheme  

inasmuch as there is no dispute to other clauses except  

the clause relating to prescription of percentage in relation  

to direct recruitment for the purposes of compassionate  

13

Page 14

appointment.     It  may be noticed that  this  Scheme of  

Compassionate Appointment can be applied only to  the  

following;

(i) The  post  should  be  falling  in  Group  ‘C’  and  ‘D’  

posts,

(ii)  It should be in relation to direct recruitment as  

specified.  

14. The Scheme provided for power of relaxation with the  

authorities in regard to age etc.   Clause 7 of the Scheme  

is the relevant clause with which we are concerned.  The  

same reads as under:-

  “7.   Determination/Availability  of  

Vacancies

(a)  Appointment  on  compassionate  grounds  should  be  made  only  on  regular  basis  and  that  too  only  if  regular  vacancies  meant  for  that  purpose are available.

(b) Compassionate appointments can  be  made  upto  a  maximum  of  5%  of  vacancies  falling  under  direct  recruitment quota in any Group ‘C’  or  ‘D’  post.     The  appointing  authority  may hold back upto 5% of vacancies in  

14

Page 15

the aforesaid categories to be filled by  direct  recruitment  through  Staff  Selection  Commission  or  otherwise  so  as to fill such vacancies by appointment  on compassionate grounds.   A person  selected  for  appointment  on  compassionate  grounds  should  be  adjusted  in  the  recruitment  roster  against  the  appropriate  category  viz.  SC/ST/OBC/General depending upon the  category  to  which  he  belongs.    For  example, if he belongs to SC category  he  will  be  adjusted  against  the  SC  reservation point, if he is ST/OBC he will  be adjusted against ST/OBC point and if  he belongs to General category he will  be adjusted against the vacancy point  meant for General category.

(c)While  the  ceiling  of  5%  for  making  compassionate  appointment  against  regular  vacancies  should  not  be  circumvented  by  making  appointment  of  dependent  family  member  of  Government  servant  on  casual/daily  wage/ad-hoc/contract  basis  against  regular  vacancies,  there  is  no  bar  to  considering him for such appointment if  he  is  eligible  as  per  the  normal  rules/orders  governing  such  appointments.

(d) The  ceiling  of  5%  of  direct  recruitment  vacancies  for  making  compassionate appointment should not  be exceeded by (sic) any other vacancy  e.g. sports quota vacancy.

15

Page 16

(e) Employment under the scheme is  not  confined  to  the  Ministry/Department/Office  in  which  deceased/medically retired Government  servant  had been working.    Such an  appointment  can  be  given  anywhere  under  the  Government  of  India  depending  upon  availability  of  a  suitable vacancy meant for the purpose  of compassionate appointment.

(f) If sufficient vacancies are not available  in any particular office to accommodate  the  persons  in  the  waiting  list  for  compassionate appointment, it is open  to  the  administrative  Ministry/Department/Office  to  take  up  the  matter  with  other  Ministries/  Departments/  Offices  of  the  Government of India to provide at any  early  date  appointment  on  compassionate grounds to those in the  waiting list.”  

15. Before, we proceed to analyse the above clause as  

well as examine its impact in view of the amended OMs of  

the  Government  of  India,  we  must  notice  that  under  

clause  16(c)  of  this  Scheme,  it  was  specifically  noticed  

that  Scheme  of  Compassionate  Appointment  was  

conceived  by  the  Government  of  India  as  far  back  as  

1958.   Since then, a number of welfare schemes have  

been introduced by the Government which has made a  

16

Page 17

significant  difference  in  the  financial  position  of  the  

families  of  the  government  servants  dying  in  

harness/retired on medical grounds.

16. Clause 16(d) further provides that a compassionate  

appointment should not be denied or delayed merely on  

the ground that there is re-organisation in the office of the  

Ministry.    The  post  should  be  made  available  to  the  

person  concerned  if  there  is  a  vacancy  meant  for  

compassionate  appointment  and  he  or  she  is  found  

eligible  and suitable  under  the  Scheme.   Not  only  this,  

under  clause  16(f),  a  compassionate  appointment  will  

have precedence on absorption of surplus employees and  

reorganisation of daily wage/casual worker with or without  

temporary status.

17. Reverting to clause 7 of the Scheme, it is stipulated  

under  the  Scheme  that  appointment  on  compassionate  

grounds should be made only on regular basis and that  

too  if  regular  vacancies  meant  for  that  purpose  are  

available. The compassionate appointments can be made  

upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct  

recruitment  quota  in  any  group  ‘C’  or  ‘D’  post.    The  

17

Page 18

appointing  authority  may  hold  back  upto  5%  of  the  

vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct  

recruitment  through  Staff  Selection  Commission  or  

otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on  

compassionate grounds.

18. Clause  7(f)  needs  to  be  emphasised  as  it  

contemplates  that  even  if  sufficient  vacancies  are  not  

available  in  any  particular  office  to  accommodate  the  

persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment,  

it is open to the administrative Ministry/Department/Office  

to  take  up  the  matter  with  other  

Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India  

to provide at an early date appointment on compassionate  

grounds to those in the waiting list.

19. The above clauses clearly show that the Scheme of  

1998 for compassionate appointment is a welfare activity  

carried out by the Government of India.   It is a benevolent  

act on the part of the State.   Keeping in view the dire  

economic  and  social  crisis  to  which  the  family  of  a  

deceased  government  employee  in  Class  ‘C’  or  ‘D’  is  

exposed,  the  government  through this  Scheme offers  a  

18

Page 19

helping hand.   This is a voluntary act of generosity on the  

part of the State.   The generosity once extended in the  

form  of  exercise  of  a  subordinate  legislative  power  by  

formulating the said Scheme, will have the force of law.   It  

is  enforceable  to  its  limited  extent  and  within  its  

prescribed parameters.   The purpose of the 1998 Scheme  

was to provide employment and preferably as part of the  

regular cadre subject to availability of vacancies.    Then  

the Central Government issued Office Memorandum dated  

16th May, 2001.   This Memorandum did not refer to the  

circular  of  1998  as  such,  however,  the  essence  of  this  

memorandum was that  while  presenting the Budget  for  

the year 2001-2002, the Finance Minister stated that “all  

requirements of recruitment will be scrutinized to ensure  

that fresh recruitment is limited to 1 per cent of total civil  

staff strength.  As about 3 per cent of the staff retire every  

year,  this  will  reduce the  manpower  by 2  per  cent  per  

annum achieving a deduction of 10 per cent in five years  

as announced by the Prime Minister.”   Under clause 2.2 of  

this  Memorandum,  it  was  further  stated  that  while  

preparing  the  Annual  Recruitment  Plans,  the  concerned  

19

Page 20

screening  committees  would  ensure  that  direct  

recruitment does not in any case exceed 1 per cent of the  

sanctioned  strength  of  the  department  and  accordingly  

direct recruitment would be limited to 1/3rd of the direct  

recruitment vacancies arising in the year subject to further  

restriction that this will not exceed 1 per cent of the total  

sanctioned strength of the department.

20. In furtherance to this Memorandum, the Government  

of India, DoPT issued a clarification on the guidelines for  

compassionate appointment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts on  

4th July,  2002.    It  clarified  that  5  per  cent  quota  for  

compassionate  appointment  is  to  be  worked  out  with  

reference to DR vacancies in each recruitment year finally  

approved for filling up by the Screening Committee under  

the  optimisation  policy  of  the  Government  contained in  

Office  Memorandum  dated  16th May,  2001.    In  other  

words,  this  Memorandum  merely  reiterated  the  

applicability  of  the Office Memorandum dated 16th May,  

2001.

21. Finally  on  14th June,  2006,  ‘Scheme  for  

Compassionate  Appointment  under  the  Central  

20

Page 21

Government Determination of Vacancies’ was clarified.   In  

this Office Memorandum, an attempt was made to clarify  

the optimisation of direct recruitment to civilian posts as  

contained in the Office Memorandum dated 16th May, 2001  

to say that the recruitment does not exceed 1% of the  

total sanctioned strength of the department.   It noticed  

that there had been a continuous reduction in the number  

of  vacancies  for  direct  recruitment,  thus,  very  few  

vacancies  or,  in  fact,  no  vacancies  were  available  for  

compassionate appointment.   In light of this, the earlier  

instructions including the instructions dated 9th October,  

1998 stood modified to the extent mentioned therein.

22. From the above Scheme and Office Memorandum, it  

is  clear  that  where  on  the  one  hand,  the  State  had  

formulated  a  welfare  scheme  for  compassionate  

appointments, there on the other, because of limitations  

of  its  financial  resources  it  decided  to  take  economic  

measures by reducing the extent of appointment by direct  

recruitment  from  the  financial  year  2001-2002.    Both  

these matters  falling  in  the  domain  of  the  Government  

and  being  matters  of  policy,  the  Court  is  hardly  called  

21

Page 22

upon to comment upon either of them.   These are the  

acts which fall in the domain of the State and do not call  

for any judicial interference.  All that we propose to hold is  

that State has to abide by the Scheme it has floated for  

compassionate appointment.   The 1998 Scheme floated  

by the Government should receive a liberal construction  

and  application  as  it  is  stated  to  be  a  social  welfare  

scheme and largely tilted in favour of the members of the  

family of the deceased employee. The purpose appears to  

be to provide them with recruitment on a regular basis  

rather than circumvent the same by adopting any other  

measure.    That  is  the  reason  why  the  Government  

specifically  states  in  its  Scheme  that  efforts  should  be  

made to appoint the members of a distressed family to the  

post provided he/she satisfies the other parameters stated  

in the Scheme.

23. The appellant was admittedly appointed to the post,  

in  furtherance  to  the  1998  Scheme,  in  the  year  2002  

(while other appellants were appointed during the period  

of 2001-2003).   The instructions which specifically dealt  

with  the  compassionate  appointments  were  issued  by  

22

Page 23

office  memorandum  dated  4th July,  2002.  Neither  the  

Memorandum  dated  16th May,  2001  nor  Memorandum  

dated 4th July, 2002 stated that the restrictions sought to  

be  imposed  were  applicable  retrospectively  or  even  

retroactively.    The  rights  of  these  persons  had  been  

settled, the respondent and others had been appointed to  

the posts and they had already worked in their respective  

posts before the notice of termination were issued to them  

at the end of year 2004.   No data or material has been  

placed by the government before us even to support the  

contention that under the effect of the instructions of the  

year 1998, these persons were appointed in excess of the  

posts  provided  under  the  Scheme.    Both  these  office  

memorandums  were  expected  to  operate  prospectively  

and thus the rights which had been settled could not be  

re-settled.     The  stand  of  the  appellant  that  it  was  a  

discrepancy or an error does not stand to any reason and  

must be rejected.   It is also undisputed before us that the  

appointments of the respondent and others were made on  

the basis of the vacancies existing against the year 2000  

23

Page 24

when the instructions of 1998 were in operation, free of  

any restriction.

24. In  the  meanwhile  and  as  already  noticed,  another  

office memorandum came to be issued on 14th June, 2006  

amending  the  restrictions  placed  by  the  office  

memorandum dated 16th May, 2001.  The memorandum of  

14th June, 2006 in fact requires as to how the vacancies  

available  for  making  direct  recruitment  are  to  be  

calculated.    It  is  not  even  the  case  of  the  appellants  

before us that in face of the memorandums, this exercise  

in terms of this memorandum was ever undertaken by the  

appellants.   It will be a contradictory stand, if on the one  

hand,  the  appellants  are  permitted  to  treat  office  

memorandums including  office  memorandum dated 16th  

May, 2001 as retrospective while on the other they treat  

office  memorandum  dated  14th June,  2006  as  

prospectively.    The High Court in the operative part of its  

judgment has clearly observed that the authorities have to  

reconsider the matter in the light of instructions issued in  

the memorandum dated 14th June, 2006.   We are unable  

24

Page 25

to find any error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the said  

finding returned by the High Court.

25. Despite  the  fact  that  the  judgment  of  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) has been  

upheld by the High Court, we are unable to contribute and  

sustain  the  view  taken  by  the  Tribunal  that  the  

Memorandum dated 16th May,  2001  frustrated  the  very  

object of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment and  

on that ground alone, it was liable to be declared invalid.  

As already noticed, both the matters are policy matters of  

the  State  and  for  valid  and  proper  reasons,  without  

infringing  the  spirit  of  Article  14  and  16  of  the  

Constitution. The State can frame its policy, where it is for  

economic reasons, least such decision would be open to  

judicial review to that extent.   In the present case, there  

is  some  ambiguity  created  by  issuance  of  office  

memorandums dated 16th May, 2001 and 14th June, 2006  

and  the  enforcement  of  the  former  vide  office  

memorandum  dated  4th July,  2002  in  relation  to  the  

implementation  of  Compassionate  Appointment  Scheme  

of 1998.   Thus, it is not only desirable but necessary that  

25

Page 26

the  competent  authority  should  issue  comprehensive  

guidelines  squarely  covering the issue,  but  they cannot  

tamper with the existing rights of the appointees.

26. To  contend  that  the  existing  status  should  not  be  

disturbed by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for  

the respondent heavily relied upon the judgment of this  

Court in Union of India and Others v. K.P. Tiwari [(2003) 9  

SCC  129],  where  the  Court  noticed  in  para  4  of  the  

judgment that “it is unnecessary in this case to examine  

either questions of law or fact arising in the matter. Suffice  

to say that the respondent has been appointed now and  

has been in service for more than five years. We do not  

think,  it  would  be  appropriate  to  disturb  that  state  of  

affairs by making any other order resulting in uprooting  

the respondent from his livelihood”.

27. As is evident from this judgment, no law has been  

stated  by  the  Court,  however  it  was  stated  that  in  the  

facts of that case, it  was not appropriate to disturb the  

appointment  at  that  stage.   We  may  usefully  refer  to  

another judgment of this Court in the case of Balbir Kaur  

26

Page 27

and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others  etc.  

etc. [(2000) 6 SCC 493], where this Court held as under:-

“19.  Mr  Bhasme  further  contended  that  family  members  of  a  large  number  of  the  employees  have  already  availed  of  the  Family Benefit Scheme and as such it would  be taken to be otherwise more beneficial to  the employee concerned. We are not called  upon  to  assess  the  situation  but  the  fact  remains  that  having  due  regard  to  the  constitutional  philosophy  to  decry  a  compassionate  employment  opportunity  would  neither  be  fair  nor  reasonable.  The  concept of social justice is the yardstick to  the  justice  administration  system  or  the  legal  justice  and as  Roscoe Pound pointed  out  the  greatest  virtue  of  law  is  in  its  adaptability and flexibility and thus it would  be otherwise an obligation for the law courts  also  to  apply  the  law depending  upon the  situation  since  the  law  is  made  for  the  society  and  whatever  is  beneficial  for  the  society,  the  endeavour  of  the  law  court  would  be  to  administer  justice  having  due  regard in that direction.”

28. In  the above case,  the Court  has placed emphasis  

upon the concept of socio-economic justice and granted  

relief  to  the  appellant  and,  in  addition,  directed  

employment of one of the family members.    

29. In view of the above settled position of law and the  

fact  that  the  memorandums  could  not  be  given  

27

Page 28

retrospective effect, we do not consider it appropriate to  

interfere with the judgment of the High Court.  The spirit  

of the Scheme was to provide relief to the family members  

of  the  deceased  persons  and  thus  on  the  yardstick  of  

social  justice,  such  relief  cannot  be  withdrawn  on  the  

ground of some alleged discrepancy which has not been  

supported  by  any  data,  is  unreasonable  and  therefore,  

even  unsustainable.   The  appellants  must  state  

appropriate  reasons  and  provide  the  expected  data  on  

record  if  they  expect  the  Court  to  come to  a  different  

conclusion.    As  already  noticed,  the  appellants  have  

miserably failed to place any such data on the basis of the  

Memorandum dated 14th June, 2006.

30. For  the  reasons  afore-stated,  we  dismiss  all  these  

appeals and further issue the following directions;

A)  The  appointments  of  the  respondents  will  not  be  

interfered with by the appellants on the strength of  

the memorandum dated 4th July, 2002.

B) The Office Memorandum dated 16th May, 2001, 14th  

June, 2006 and 4th July, 2002 have in relation to the  

28

Page 29

1998  Scheme  for  Compassionate  Appointment  

caused some confusion on the one hand and while on  

the other they have prejudicially affected the rights  

of large number of heirs of the employees who died  

in harness.    Thus, we direct the appellants to issue  

comprehensive, certain and unambiguous directions  

which  shall  put  an  end  to  such  unnecessary  

controversies.

31. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

……...….…………......................J.                                  (Swatanter Kumar)

.…………..................................J.                  (Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya) New Delhi, December 13, 2012  

29