Case Note & Summary
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) appealed against the Rajasthan High Court's judgment declaring Regulation 4(3) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent, Danish Khan, son of deceased employee Mohd. Shahid, sought compassionate appointment after his father died in a motor accident while travelling in a Corporation bus. The respondent had already claimed and received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The Corporation rejected his compassionate appointment application citing Regulation 4(3), which bars dependents from claiming both compensation under the Act and compassionate appointment when the death occurs in a Corporation-owned vehicle. The High Court struck down the regulation as discriminatory, holding that dependents of employees who die in accidents involving Corporation vehicles are treated differently from those who die in accidents involving non-Corporation vehicles, who can claim both compensation from third parties and compassionate appointment from the Corporation. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision. The Court held that the two categories of dependents are not similarly situated because in one case the Corporation is liable to pay compensation under the Act, while in the other it is not. The classification is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of avoiding double burden on the Corporation. The Court relied on National Insurance Company Limited v. Rekhaben and Others, which held that salary from compassionate appointment provided by the tortfeasor can be deducted from compensation. The Court concluded that Regulation 4(3) is not discriminatory and is valid under Article 14. Consequently, the respondent, having received compensation, is not entitled to compassionate appointment. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Regulation 4(3) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 creates two classes of dependents: those whose employee died in a Corporation-owned vehicle and those whose employee died in a non-Corporation vehicle. The classification is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of avoiding double burden on the Corporation. Held, Regulation 4(3) is not violative of Article 14 (Paras 7-11). B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 140 - Regulation 4(3) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 disentitles dependents of a deceased employee from claiming both compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and compassionate appointment from the Corporation when the accident involves a Corporation-owned vehicle. The Corporation cannot be subjected to dual liability. Held, the dependents who claim compensation from the Corporation cannot also claim compassionate appointment (Paras 6, 12). C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Deduction of Salary from Compassionate Appointment - National Insurance Company Limited v. Rekhaben and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 547 - Salary earned from compassionate appointment provided by the tortfeasor (employer who is owner of offending vehicle) can be deducted from compensation payable under the Act. This supports the rationale that the Corporation should not bear both liabilities (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Regulation 4(3) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and held that Regulation 4(3) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent, having received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, is not entitled to compassionate appointment.
Law Points
- Article 14 permits reasonable classification
- intelligible differentia
- rational nexus
- compassionate appointment and motor accident compensation cannot be claimed simultaneously from same employer
- Regulation 4(3) of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations
- 2010 is valid
