Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh  INSC 500 (29 September 1994)
S. (J) Mohan, S. (J) Venkatachalliah, M.N.(Cj)
1994 SCC (6) 560 JT 1994 (6) 372 1994 SCALE (4)372
Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J.- Leave granted.
facts lie in a narrow compass.
respondent's father died while he was serving as a Sub-Inspector, CID (Special
Branch) in the year 1988. The respondent applied to the appellant for
appointment on compassionate ground. He was appointed as Lower Division Clerk
on 14-12- 1989 on compassionate ground. After having accepted the appointment
as LDC, he sought appointment as Sub Inspector.
was denied. Aggrieved by the denial, he preferred SBCWP No. 3875 of 1992. By
judgment dated 6-8-1992, the learned Single Judge of 562 the High Court of
Rajasthan directed consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post
of Sub-Inspector in accordance with the proviso to Rule 5 of Rajasthan
Recruitment of Dependants of the Government Servants (Dying while in Service)
Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The consideration was
directed to be effected within six months from the date of the judgment.
Assailing the correctness of this judgment, Special Appeal No. 481 of 1993 was
filed by the appellant. That was dismissed on the ground of delay of 112 days. Thus,
the present civil appeal.
alternate contentions are raised on behalf of the appellant State:
The Division Bench of the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal merely on
the ground of delay. Such a delay was occasioned due to the administrative
exigencies which have been properly explained. The failure to condone the delay
has resulted in grave injustice.
On merits, the appellant has a good case.
Court in State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali1 under more or less identical
circumstances set aside the direction of the High Court for consideration of
the candidature on compassionate ground when on such compassionate ground, the
candidate had been appointed as a clerk. The ratio of the judgment will clearly
apply to this case. Once the respondent accepted the appointment as a clerk
which appointment came to be made on compassionate ground, he cannot Jay a
further claim for appointment as Sub- Inspector. It cannot be a case of
compassion for all time. The learned Single Judge had erred in giving direction
that the case of respondent must be considered within six months from the date
of judgment under proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules.
opposition to this, learned counsel for the respondent would urge that because
appellant State had not properly explained the delay of 112 days, the Court
thought it fit to dismiss the appeal. The Division Bench had exercised the
jurisdiction vested in it properly.
merits, it is urged that the appellant has no case whatsoever. As a matter of
fact, the very ruling on which reliance is sought to be placed by the
appellant, supports the respondent. This Court pointed out that only a
direction should be issued by the High Court for consideration and not a
direction to appoint. That is precisely what has been done by the learned
open to the State to consider as per the direction and come to a conclusion one
way or other. Instead it had resorted to a belated appeal. It should not be
is a case in which the special appeal to the Division Bench against the
judgment of the Single Judge was delayed by 11 2 days. We find that the delay
had been caused on account of administrative exigencies. The failure to condone
the delay has resulted in injustice as rightly urged on behalf of the appellant
State because the judgment of the learned Single Judge constitutes a bad
we condone the delay. We proceed to decide the matter on the merits instead of
remitting it to the Division Bench. The need to do so would be evident from the
(1994) 4 SCC 448: 1994 SCC (L&S) 909: (1994) 27 ATC 611: JT (1994) 4 SC 184
Admittedly the respondent's father died in harness while working as
Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an
application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as
Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of vacancy. On a
consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated
14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be
considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No
further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it
would be a case of "endless compassion". Eligibility to be appointed
as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet
another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued
under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this
Since both the sides relied on Naresh Kumar Bali's case1, we will now refer to
the same. We had indicated our mind in that very ruling in paragraph 15 of the
said judgment. It reads as under: (SCC p. 452, para 15) "Though the
respondent claimed that he had applied for the post of a teacher the
Subordinate Service Selection Board had not chosen him for the post of teacher
because he did not have the requisite qualification. In fact, the respondent
did not object to his appointment as a clerk and his claim for consideration
for the post of teacher was one year after his appointment. Thus, the appointment
on compassionate ground as per the scheme had been completed." (emphasis
supplied) Therefore, once the right has consummated as we indicated earlier,
any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of
compassion would not arise.
is true that in the decision cited, the direction by the High Court was a
positive direction to make the appointment but here the direction was to
consider the case.
we find that the High Court was not legally justified in directing a further
consideration of the candidature of the respondent for the post of
civil appeal will stand allowed and in reversal of the orders of the courts
below respondent's writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to