REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6958 OF 2022

Fertilizers and Chemicals

Travancore Ltd. & Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Anusree K.B. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 543 of 2021 by

which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the

said writ appeal preferred by the appellants and has confirmed

the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge

directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent

herein for appointment on compassionate ground, the

o r i g inal appellants – Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore

Signature Not V e rified

Ltd. and Ors.

Digitally signed
by SNEHA
Date: 2022.09.30
16:26:17
IST

1
Reason:
have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as

under:-

2
2.1 That father of the respondent was employed as a loading

helper with the appellant No. 1 and expired while on duty on

19.04.1995. At the time of death of the employee, the wife of

the deceased employee was serving and therefore, was not

eligible for appointment on compassionate ground considering

the scheme for employment of dependents of the employees

dying in harness. After a period of 14 years, after the death of

the deceased employee, the respondent daughter of the

deceased employee made a representation seeking

appointment on compassionate basis. That her application for

compassionate appointment was rejected on 12.02.2018 on the

grounds that her name was not in the list of dependents

submitted by the deceased employee and that the policy was

to give employment to widow or son or unmarried daughter of

the deceased employee.

2.2 The rejection of the application for compassionate

appointment was the subject matter of writ petition before the

learned Single Judge. Vide order dated 13.11.2019, the learned

Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the directions to

the appellants to reconsider the application of the respondent

in accordance with Clause 1 of the Scheme.

3
2.3 That on 12.12.2019, after reconsideration, the appellants

again rejected the application of the respondent for

appointment on

4
compassionate ground on the grounds that it did not meet the

primary test of scheme that the deceased employee should be

the “sole bread winner of his family”, since his wife was

gainfully employed with the Kerala State Health Services

Department at the time of his death and also on the ground

that 24 years have lapsed since the date of death of the

deceased employee.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated

13.11.2019, rejecting the application of the respondent for

appointment on compassionate ground, the respondent filed a

writ petition before the High Court.

2.5 By the judgment and order dated 22.01.2021, the learned

Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and directed the

appellants to reconsider the respondent’s claim strictly in terms

of the observations and directions passed in the order of the

learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition

No. 11234 of 2018 (earlier round of litigation).

2.6 The judgment and order passed by the learned Single

Judge was the subject matter of appeal before the Division

Bench of the High Court by way of present writ appeal. By the

5
impugned judgment and order, the

6
Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ

appeal, which has given rise to the present appeal before this

Court.

3. Shri Siddharth Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and

circumstances of the case and, more particularly, when the

application for appointment on compassionate ground was

made by the respondent – daughter of the deceased

employee after a period of 14 years from the death of the

deceased employee, the Hon’ble High Court ought not to have

directed the appellants to reconsider the case of the

respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. It is

submitted that to reconsider the case of the respondent now for

appointment on compassionate ground after a period of 24

years would be against the object and purpose of appointment

on compassionate ground namely to meet out the difficulties

created on account of sudden death of the sole bread earner.

Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of

Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree,

2021 SCC Online SC 704 and another decision of this Court in the

case of N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617.

3.1 Making above submissions and relying upon the above

7
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

8
4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Sanjay

Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent.

4.1 It is submitted that at the relevant time when the

deceased employee died in the year 1995, the respondent was

minor. It is submitted that on attaining the age of majority, the

respondent daughter made an application for appointment on

compassionate ground. It is submitted that initially when the

application of the respondent for appointment on

compassionate ground was rejected, the same was not on the

ground subsequently mentioned while passing the order dated

13.11.2019 namely delay. It is submitted that in the year 2018,

even the respondent was called for the interview, however, at

that time, the appointment was denied on the ground that in

the dependent’s list, the name of the respondent is not

mentioned, which was found to be factually incorrect. It is

submitted that therefore, the respondent cannot be denied the

appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of delay.

Therefore, it is prayed not to interfere with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

9
6. The respondent’s father was serving as a loading helper.

He died in the year 1995. At the relevant time, the widow of the

deceased employee – mother of the respondent was serving

in the Kerala State

10
Health Services Department and, therefore, as such was not

eligible and/or entitled for appointment on compassionate

ground. After a period of approximately 14 years, the

respondent being a daughter of the deceased employee

submitted an application for appointment on compassionate

ground, which has been rejected by the appellants. At this

stage, it is required to be noted that in the meantime, the

respondent got married in the year 2013. It is also required to

be noted that by the time, the learned Single Judge passed the

order, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench, more

than 24 years have passed after the death of the deceased

employee. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is

required to be considered whether still the respondent shall be

entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on the

death of her father, who died in the year 1995?

7. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal,

the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on

the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred

to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in the case

of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree,

2021 SCC Online SC 704, had occasion to consider the principle

governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground.

11
After referring to the decision of this Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs.

State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617,

12
this Court has summarisedthe principle governing the grant

of appointment on compassionate ground as under:-

(i) that the compassionate appointment is an

exception to the general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to

compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the

service of the State has to be made on
the basis of the principle in accordance with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can

be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down
by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the
eligibility criteria as per the policy;

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the

consideration of the application should be the
basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment.

8. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of

decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all

the government vacancies equal opportunity should be

provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate

ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an

exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a

concession and not a right.

8.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi

13
Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had an occasion

to consider the object and purpose of appointment on

compassionate

14
ground and considered the decision of this Court in the case of

Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in

paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:-

“21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind

Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been
considered subsequently in several decisions. But,
before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary
to note that the nature of compassionate
appointment had been considered by this Court in
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC
138]. The principles which have been laid down in
Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been
subsequently followed in a consistent line of
precedents in this Court. These principles are
encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh
Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State
of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138], SCC pp. 139-40,
para 2)

“2. … As a rule, appointments in

the public services should be made
strictly on the basis of open invitation of
applications and merit. No other mode
of appointment nor any other
consideration is permissible. Neither the
Governments nor the public authorities
are at liberty to follow any other
procedure or relax the qualifications laid
down by the rules for the post. However,
to this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case, there are
some exceptions carved out in the
interests of justice and to meet certain
contingencies. One such exception is in
favour of the dependants of an
employee dying in harness and leaving
his family in penury and without any
means of livelihood. In such cases, out
of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that
15
unless some source of livelihood is
provided, the family would not be able
to make both ends meet, a provision is
made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants
of the deceased who may be eligible for
such

16
employment. The whole object of
granting compassionate employment is
thus to enable the family to tide over
the sudden crisis. The object is not to
give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the
deceased. What is further, mere death
of an employee in harness does not
entitle his family to such source of
livelihood. The Government or the public
authority concerned has to examine the
financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied,
that but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able
to meet the crisis that a job is to be
offered to the eligible member of the
family. The posts in Classes III and IV are
the lowest posts in non- manual and
manual categories and hence they
alone can be offered on compassionate
grounds, the object being to relieve the
family, of the financial destitution and to
help it get over the emergency. The
provision of employment in such lowest
posts by making an exception to the
rule is justifiable and valid since it is not
discriminatory. The favourable
treatment given to such dependant of
the deceased employee in such posts
has a rational nexus with the object
sought to be achieved viz. relief against
destitution. No other posts are
expected or required to be given by
the public authorities for the purpose. It
must be remembered in this connection
that as against the destitute family of
the deceased there are millions of other
families which are equally, if not more
destitute. The exception to the rule
made in favour of the family of the
deceased employee is in consideration
of the services rendered by him and the
legitimate expectations, and the change
in the status and affairs, of the family
17
 engendered by the erstwhile
employment which are suddenly
upturned.”

26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz

Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC
384] has adopted the principle that appointment on
compassionate

18
 grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to
enable the family of the deceased to get over a
sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the
family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the
provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in
Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC,
(2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S)
590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed
that it did not appear that the earlier binding
precedents of this Court have been taken note of in
that case.”

9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the

aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an

exception to the general rule of appointment in the public

services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying

in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any

means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure

humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact

that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family

would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made

in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the

dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such

employment. The whole object of granting compassionate

employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the

sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much

less a post held by the deceased.

9.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid

decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the

19
observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for

which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided,

the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on

compassionate ground on the death of her father,

20
who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the

death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be

entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such

an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24

years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for

which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.

9.2 Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge

as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed

a serious error in directing the appellants to reconsider the

case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate

ground. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court is unsustainable.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present appeal succeeds. The judgment and order passed by

the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the

High Court are hereby quashed and set aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI;..................................................................................................J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]

21