Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose from two writ petitions filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by widows of two deceased Apprentice Canal Patwaris employed by the State of Haryana on ad-hoc basis. The State had introduced an ex-gratia and compassionate appointment scheme through Government Order dated 31.10.1985 for dependants of deceased Government employees. The widows sought appointment on compassionate grounds after their husbands died during training. The High Court directed the State to appoint them against Class-IV posts. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. Facts: Rani Devi's husband worked as Apprentice Canal Patwari from 25 August 1987 to 25 February 1989; Anguri Devi's husband worked from 15 July 1992 to 2 June 1993. Both were appointed on purely ad-hoc basis as apprentices. The State refused to extend the scheme, contending that the expression 'employee' in the 31.10.1985 order does not include casual, ad-hoc employees or apprentices. It relied on Punjab Civil Services Rules Chapter II Para 2.6, which defines apprentice as a person deputed for training not employed against substantive vacancy, and on a State decision dated 9 May 1972 excluding ad-hoc employees from ex-gratia benefits. The High Court nonetheless allowed the writ petitions, prompting the present appeals. Legal Issues: The core issue was whether dependants of an employee who died while working as an apprentice on ad-hoc basis fall within the scope of 'deceased Government employee' under the 31.10.1985 Government Order, entitling them to compassionate appointment. This also involved the constitutional limits of compassionate appointment under Articles 14 and 16. Arguments: The State argued that compassionate appointment is an exception to equality clauses and must be confined strictly to the terms of the scheme. Since apprentices are not regular employees and are not appointed against substantive vacancies, their dependants cannot claim the benefit. The respondents, as widows, claimed that their husbands were employees of the State who died in harness, leaving the family without means of livelihood, and thus they should be given appointment to tide over the crisis. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court reviewed precedents including Sushma Gosain, LIC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, Umesh Kumar Nagpal, and State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali. It reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16, permissible only to mitigate hardship caused by death of a regular employee and must be in accordance with rules or administrative orders. It emphasized that High Courts and Tribunals cannot issue directions on sympathetic considerations outside the scheme. The Court noted that the scheme's purpose is to assist the bereaved family of a deceased regular employee. The expression 'employee' in the 31.10.1985 order, read with Punjab Civil Services Rules definition of apprentice, does not include casual, purely ad-hoc employees or apprentices. Extending the scheme to all such categories would be constitutionally unjustifiable. The Court also observed that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be claimed within a reasonable time. Decision: The appeals were allowed, the High Court's impugned orders were set aside, and no costs were ordered. The dependants of the apprentices were held not entitled to compassionate appointment under the scheme.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 16 - Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the equality provisions and can only be sustained under valid rules, regulations, or administrative orders mitigating sudden hardship due to death of a regular employee. The High Court cannot direct appointment on compassionate ground when the scheme does not cover the deceased employee's status. Held that courts and tribunals must not issue directions on sympathetic considerations outside the scope of governing rules (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Interpretation of 'Employee' - Government Order dated 31.10.1985 and Punjab Civil Services Rules Chapter II Para 2.6 - The expression 'employee' in the ex-gratia and compassionate appointment scheme does not include casual, purely ad-hoc employees or apprentices. An apprentice is defined as a person deputed for training not employed against a substantive vacancy, drawing monthly pay during training. Dependants of an apprentice who died during training are not entitled to compassionate appointment. Held that extending the scheme to all casual, ad-hoc and apprentice employees would be constitutionally unjustifiable (Paras Not mentioned). C) Service Law - Judicial Review and Delay - Government Order dated 31.10.1985 - Compassionate appointment is not a vested right exercisable at any future time; it must be claimed within a reasonable period specified in the rules. High Courts should direct consideration of claims in accordance with rules rather than direct appointment to a specific post. Held that the appeals must be allowed, impugned orders set aside, no costs (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether dependants of an employee who died while working as an Apprentice Canal Patwari on ad-hoc basis are entitled to appointment on compassionate ground under the Government Order dated 31.10.1985; Whether the expression 'employee' in the said scheme includes casual, ad-hoc employees or apprentices.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; impugned orders of High Court on two writ petitions set aside; no order as to costs. The expression 'employee' in Government Order dated 31.10.1985 does not conceive casual or purely ad-hoc employees or those working as apprentices; no direction for appointment of the respondents on compassionate grounds.
Law Points
- Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution
- Such appointments must be in accordance with rules
- regulations or administrative instructions
- Expression 'employee' in Government Order dated 31.10.1985 does not include casual
- purely ad-hoc employees or apprentices
- The right to compassionate appointment is not a vested right exercisable at any time in future
- Appointments on compassionate grounds cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period
- High Courts and Tribunals cannot issue directions on sympathetic considerations when regulations do not contemplate such appointments
