Page 1

Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.    4776-4777 of 2017

(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.31158-31159 of 2013)

MUKESH & ANR.  .... Appellant(s)

Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

….Respondent(s) With

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4778-4779 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.34174-34175 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4780 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35494 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4781 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35496 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4782-4784 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35818-35820 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4785 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35938 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4786 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.36908 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4787-4792 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37292-37297 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4793 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.37533 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4794-4797 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37868-37871 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4798-4800 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37983-37985 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4801 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.39421 of 2013)

1

Page 2

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4802 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.39424 of 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4803-4806 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.601-604 of 2014)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4807 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.3605 of 2014)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4808 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7357 of 2014)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4809 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12929 of 2014)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos 4812 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21393 of 2014)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

The Appellants are children of Government employees

who died  in  harness.    They  applied  for  appointment  to

Class  III  Government  posts  on  the  basis  of  instructions

governing  compassionate  appointments.  The  competent

authority  recommended the appointment  of  some of  the

Appellants in Class III posts.  However, they were appointed

on  fixed  pay  as  Prakhand  Teachers/Panchayat

Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, etc. The Writ Petitions filed by

them were allowed and the Respondents were directed to

2

Page 3

appoint them in Class III or Class IV posts or to pay them

regular pay scales in the post of Assistant Teacher.   The

Appeals  filed  by  the  Government  challenging  the  said

judgment  in  the  writ  applications  were  allowed.   The

Appellants  who  have  challenged  the  judgment  of  the

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  in  these  Appeals

submitted  that  they  are  covered  by  a  judgment  of  this

Court  in  Vishwanath  Pandey  v.  State  of  Bihar  and

Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 545.  Vishwanath

Pandey  who  was  similarly  situated  to  the  Appellants

succeeded in the Writ Petition filed by him for appointment

on a regular pay scale.  However, the said judgment was

reversed  by  a  Division  Bench.  By  the  aforementioned

judgment,  the  Appeal  filed  by  Vishwanath  Pandey  was

allowed by this Court holding thus:-  

“8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinised the records.  It  is  not in  dispute that even  though  the  District  Compassionate  Committee had made recommendations on 29-11-2005 that the appellant may be appointed on a Class III post, he was not given appointment because of the ban imposed by the State Government.  It  is  also not  in  dispute that after  lifting  of  the  ban,  the  District  Compassionate Committee recommended the appellant's appointment as  teacher  on  compassionate  ground  and  he  was appointed  against  the  vacant  post  by  the  District Superintendent  of  Education,  Buxar.  That  order  was neither  rescinded  nor  modified  by  the  competent

3

Page 4

authority on the premise that after coming into force of  the  2006  Rules,  the  appellant  could  have  been appointed only by the Panchayat Samiti on the post of Prakhand Teacher. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was not at all justified in recording a finding that the appellant could have been appointed only as a Prakhand Teacher by the Panchayat Samiti on fixed pay. Unfortunately, the Division Bench overlooked the fact that the appellant had been appointed as per the policy  of  compassionate appointment  framed by the State Government and that policy does not envisage the  appointment  of  the  dependant  of  a  deceased employee on fixed pay.”    

2. By the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the High

Court correctly held that the Appellants have no legal

right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds.

Compassionate  appointments  are  not  a  source  of

recruitment and they are made to provide succour  to

the family of an employee who dies in harness. In the

State  of  Bihar  compassionate  appointments  are

governed  by  instructions  issued  by  the  Government.

Some  of  the  Appellants  were  recommended  for

appointment to Class III posts on a regular basis by the

District Compassionate Committee.  However, they were

appointed  as  Prakhand  Teachers/Panchayat  Shikshaks/

Nagar Shikshaks, etc. on a fixed pay.   The Appellants

could not have been appointed on a fixed pay and they

4

Page 5

are  entitled  for  appointment  to  either  on  Class  III  or

Class IV posts on regular basis or payment of regular

pay  scale  in  the  posts  of  as  Prakhand

Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks,  etc.  in

which  they  are  working  at  present.   Some  of  the

Appellants who were recommended for appointment to

Class  III  posts  but  were  appointed  as  Prakhand

Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, etc. on

fixed pay are similarly  situated to Vishwanath Pandey

and they are entitled to be appointed on a regular pay

scale.     

3. The  other  Appellants  who  were  appointed  after

01.07.2006 are not entitled to the relief granted to those

who were recommended for appointment to Class III or

Class IV posts prior to that date.  A Full  Bench of the

Patna  High  Court  in  State  of  Bihar  and  Others  v.

Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar, reported in (2010) 3 PLJR

294  (FB), held  that  the  dependents  of  deceased

Government employees do not have a legal right to be

appointed in Government posts.  Their appointments on

compassionate  grounds  shall  be  in  accordance  with

5

Page 6

Bihar  Panchayat  Primary  Teacher  (Employment  and

Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘Rules’) which came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2006.

Rule 10 of the said Rules provides for employment on

compassionate grounds to the dependents of teaching/

non-teaching employees against available vacancies of

Panchayat  Teachers/Block  Teachers/Prakhand Teachers,

etc. Such appointments can be made only on a fixed pay

by  the  committee  constituted  under  the  Rules.  The

Appellants  who  have  not  been  recommended  for

appointment  to  Class  III  or  Class  IV  posts  prior  to

01.07.2006  are  not  covered  by  Vishwanath  Pandey’s

case  (supra).  On  the  other  hand,  they  are  squarely

covered by the judgment of Full Bench of the Patna High

Court. They are not similarly situated to those who were

recommended for appointment to Class III posts prior to

01.07.2006.  The Appellants, who were appointed after

01.07.2006,  the  date  on  which  the  Rules  came  into

force, are not entitled to claim appointment on regular

pay scales.  It is relevant to note that the judgment of

the Full Bench of the High Court of Patna was challenged

6

Page 7

before  this  Court.   The  said  SLP  was  withdrawn with

liberty granted to the petitioners therein to approach the

Government for suitable relief.   

4. For the foregoing reasons, we direct that the Appellants

who were recommended for appointment to Class III or

Class  IV  posts  prior  to  01.07.2006  will  either  be

appointed on Class III or Class IV posts on regular basis

or  will  be  entitled  for  continuance  as  Teachers  on  a

regular  pay  scale.   The  other  Appellants  who  were

appointed after 01.07.2006 will not be entitled for the

relief of regular pay scales.   However,  we grant them

liberty to approach the State Government for  suitable

relief in terms of the order passed in SLP (C) No.29655

of 2010.   

5. The Appeals are disposed of.    No costs.          

              ........................................J                 [S. A. BOBDE]

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

New Delhi, April 3,  2017

7