Musheerabad & Ors Vs. Sarvarunnisa Begum  Insc 302 (27 February 2008)
Naolekar & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
APPEAL NO 1616 OF 2008 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17587
of 2005) P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.:
respondent's husband died in harness while in service of the Andhra Pradesh
State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the Corporation"). The
respondent-widow submitted an application expressing her willingness to accept
additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment as per the Scheme. The
appellant-Corporation gave additional monetary benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
respondent in lieu of her not claiming any employment in the Corporation.
the respondent made a request that the additional monetary benefit may be taken
back and to provide her employment on compassionate grounds. When the
Corporation refused, she filed a writ petition in the High Court, claiming
compassionate appointment. Learned Single Judge of the High Court held that
merely because additional monetary benefits are given to the respondent, her
case for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be rejected, and gave
direction to consider the case of the respondent for appointment under
"Bread Winner Scheme".
by the order of the Single Judge, the appellant-Corporation filed writ appeal.
Although there was no appeal filed by the respondent, the Division Bench of the
High Court modified the order of the Single Judge to the extent of directing
appointment of the respondent to the post of Conductor/Attender, whichever
available, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy
of the order and for refund of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by the respondent on
such appointment. This order is under challenge before us.
This Court time and again has held that the compassionate appointment would be
given to the dependent of the deceased who died in harness to get over the
difficulties on the death of the bread- earner. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State
of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this
Court has held as under:
whole object of granting compassionate employment is 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 post 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.
compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial
condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments
in posts above Classes III and IV, is legally impermissible."
the present case, the additional monetary benefit has been given to the widow
apart from the benefits available to the widow after the death of her husband
to get over the financial constraints on account of sudden death of her husband
and, thus, as a matter of right, she was not entitled to claim the compassionate
appointment and that too when it had not been brought to the notice of the
Court that any vacancy was available where the respondent could have been
accommodated by giving her a compassionate appointment.
apart, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed an error in modifying
the direction of the Single Judge by directing the Corporation to appoint the
respondent when no appeal was preferred by the respondent challenging order of
the Single Judge.
the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the orders of the High Court
are set aside.