Case Note & Summary
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation appealed against a judgment from the Rajasthan High Court which declared Regulation 4(3) of its Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 unconstitutional for violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The case arose after the respondent's father, an employee of the Corporation, died in a motor accident while traveling in a Corporation bus. The respondent claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but his request for compassionate appointment was rejected based on Regulation 4(3), which stated that dependents could not claim both compensation and compassionate appointment if the employee died in a Corporation vehicle. The High Court found this regulation discriminatory, as it treated dependents of employees who died in Corporation vehicles differently from those who died in non-Corporation vehicles. The Supreme Court analyzed the classification made by Regulation 4(3) and concluded that it was reasonable, as it aimed to prevent the Corporation from bearing dual liabilities of compensation and compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that the dependents of employees who died in Corporation vehicles and those who died in other vehicles are not similarly situated regarding their claims. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment after receiving compensation under the Act.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Discrimination - Regulation 4(3) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 - The High Court declared Regulation 4(3) unconstitutional for being discriminatory against dependents of employees who died in accidents involving Corporation vehicles. The Supreme Court held that the classification of dependents is reasonable as it distinguishes between those who claim compensation from the Corporation and those who do not, thus not violating Article 14 (Paras 1-12).
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.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that Regulation 4(3) is not discriminatory and the respondent is not entitled to compassionate appointment after receiving compensation under the Act.
Law Points
- Article 14
- compassionate appointment
- discrimination
- reasonable classification
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
