No one can claim to have vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds:Supreme Court

Read Judgment: The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (primary) & Others vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, December 17,2021: The Supreme Court has ruled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic, but subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. 

Therefore, no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds, added the Court. 

Noticing that the employee died on December 8, 2010 and the amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (7th amendment) Rules, 2012, was notified on July 11, 2012, a Division Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian therefore observed that merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issue of the amendment, Bheemesh (Respondent) could not have sought the benefit of the amendment. 

The interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor, added the Bench. 

The observation came pursuant to appeal preferred by the State Government challenging the order passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which was also confirmed by the High Court, directing them to consider the case of Respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. 

The background of the case is that, the Respondent’s sister who was employed as Assistant Teacher in a Government School, died in harness, leaving behind her surviving mother, two brothers and two sisters. Claiming that the deceased was unmarried and that the mother, two brothers and two sisters were entirely dependent on her income, the respondent sought appointment on compassionate grounds. This claim was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the amendment made to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (7th amendment) Rules, 2012 extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the unmarried dependant brother of an unmarried female employee, will not be applicable to the case of the respondent.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal however allowed the application on the ground that the amendment made to the 2012 Rules would apply retrospectively covering the case of the respondent. The petition before the High Court by State also came to be dismissed. Hence, present appeal by the State. 

After considering the arguments and submissions, the Top Court reiterated that every appointment to a post or service must be made strictly by adhering to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 

Appointment on compassionate grounds, is an exception to the regular mode of recruitment, as it is intended to provide succor to the family of the deceased Government servant, which is thrown out of gear both financially and otherwise, due to the sudden death of the Government servant in harness, added the Court. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Ramasubramanian admitted that the appointment on compassionate grounds in the State of Karnataka is governed by a set of Rules known as Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate grounds) Rules, 1996, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) read with Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. 

The Rules as they stood, on the date on which the sister of the respondent died in harness, did not include an unmarried brother, within the definition of the expression “dependant of a deceased Government servant” under Rule 2(1)(a) of the said Rules vis-a-vis a deceased female unmarried Government servant, noted the Division Bench. 

However, Justice Ramasubramanian observed that it was only by way of an amendment proposed under a draft Notification dated June 20, 2012 which was given effect under the final Notification bearing No. DPAR 55 SCA 2012, Bangalore dated July 11, 2012 that an unmarried brother of a deceased female unmarried Government servant was included within the definition.

There is no dispute about the fact that the sister of the respondent died as an unmarried female Government servant, but on Dec 08, 2010, before the amendment was made to the Rules, added the Bench. 

Hence, the Apex Court dismissed the application of the respondent for compassionate appointment.