Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9049 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19871 of 2009)

Director General of Posts & Ors. …

Appellant

Versus

K. Chandrashekar Rao … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9050 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19872 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9051 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21910 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9053 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23211 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9054 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23212 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9055 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23213 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9056 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23214 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9057 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25550 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9058 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25551 of 2009)

1

Page 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9059 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25553 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9060 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25559 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9061 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.27784 of 2009)

J U D G M E N T

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1.Leave granted in all the SLPs.

2.By this common judgment we shall dispose of all the

above mentioned appeals which are directed against the

judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad passed on different dates vide which the Court,

while relying upon its judgment dated 23

rd

July, 2008

passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 15820/2008, has dismissed

the writ petitions filed by the concerned government

authority.

3.Thus, it is not necessary for us to notice the facts of

each appeal separately. Though, the judgments are of

different dates, they are primarily based upon the

2

Page 3 judgment of the High Court dated 23

rd

July, 2008. For the

purpose of convenience, we would be referring to the facts

of SLP(C) No.19871/2009.

FACTS:

4.The Department of Personnel and Training (for short

‘DoPT’), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and

Pension, Government of India, issued a memorandum

dated 9

th

October, 1998 containing the scheme for

compassionate appointment with an object to give a

source of employment to the dependent family members

of the government servant dying in harness or one who

has retired on medical grounds. This scheme was

declared on 9

th

October, 1998. The scheme stipulated that

the compassionate appointment could be made upto a

maximum of 5 per cent of the vacancies falling under

Direct Recruitment Quota in Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ post.

5.According to the appellants, the scheme of

compassionate appointment is always treated as an

exception to the general rule of recruitment.

3

Page 4 6.The father of the respondent was employed with the

appellants in a Group ‘D’ post. Unfortunately, the father

of the respondent died on 19

th

April, 2000.

7.On 16

th

May, 2001, the DoPT issued an office

memorandum in view of the policy of the Government of

India that fresh recruitment should be limited to one per

cent of the total strength of civilian staff. The basis for the

same appeared to be that about three per cent of the staff

retired every year and thus, the reduction in manpower

would reduce to 2% p.a. if fresh recruitment is limited to

1% p.a. This would achieve a deduction of ten percent in

five years. It was decided that each Ministry and

Department would formulate an Annual Direct

Recruitment Plan through the mechanism of Screening

Committee. Para 2.2 of this memorandum provided that

while preparing the Annual Recruitment Plan, the

concerned Screening Committee was to ensure that the

direct recruitment did not exceed one per cent of the total

sanctioned strength of the Department. Since three per

cent of the staff retired every year, this would translate

only to one-third of the Direct Recruitment vacancies

4

Page 5 occurring in each year being filled. Thus, the recruitment

would be limited to filling one-third of the vacancies of

Direct Recruitment arising in the year, subject to a further

ceiling, that it does not exceed one percent of the total

sanctioned strength of the Department. In terms of Para

2.4 of the memorandum, it was further stated that the

vacancies so cleared by the Screening Committee will be

filled up by applying rules for reservation, handicapped,

compassionate quota therein.

8.However, the Special Circle Relaxation Committee,

approved the names of the candidates in the category of

compassionate appointment on the basis of 5 per cent of

the existing vacancies occurring in the year 2000, 2001

and 2002. In face of the memorandum dated 16

th

May,

2001, on or about 13

th

March, 2002, 69 names were

approved. On 4

th

July, 2002, the DoPT issued a

clarificatory memorandum that the five per cent quota for

compassionate appointment was to be calculated on the

basis of direct recruitment vacancies finally cleared by the

Screening Committee and not on the basis of the total

vacancies occurring in the Department. The respondent,

5

Page 6 on 6

th

August, 2002 was communicated the intimation with

regard to the approval of his name for appointment to

Group ‘D’ post, which he joined on 22

nd

August, 2002.

9.It is the case of the appellants now that the mistake

of appointment in excess of the prescribed quota was

detected and vide letter dated 12

th

March, 2003 it was

communicated that it was not possible to adjust the

candidates who were recommended in excess of the quota

because the recommendation for compassionate

appointment was to be made on the basis of five per cent

of the approved vacancies cleared by the Screening

Committee. In furtherance to this, a decision was taken

on 17

th

May, 2004 to select only the most indigent persons

against the available vacancies within the prescribed

ceiling of 5 per cent of the vacancies finally cleared by the

Screening Committee. In furtherance to the decision

taken by the competent authority, a meeting of the

Special Circle Relaxation Committee was convened and

appointment of total 21 candidates on the basis of five per

cent approved vacancies cleared by the Screening

Committee was approved. The remaining 48 candidates

6

Page 7 were terminated/not permitted to continue/dropped on

12

th

October, 2004. On 12

th

January, 2005, the appellants

noticed that the candidates, whose names had been

cleared for compassionate appointment on 13-15

th

March,

2002 or in the year 2002 were still temporary servants.

48 names were in excess of the quota, therefore, a notice

of termination under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services

(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 was issued and as

already noticed, the services of the 48 persons, whose

names were recommended in excess of the quota, were

terminated. These appointees, including the respondent

in the present appeal, challenged the said order of

termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for

short ‘CAT’). The CAT granted an interim stay during the

pendency of the hearing of the application vide its order

dated 8

th

February, 2005. The present appellants also

point out that two other applications, being OA No.

434/2005 and OA No. 761/2005 filed by similarly situated

employees, came to be dismissed vide orders of the CAT

dated 20

th

October, 2005 and 19

th

April, 2007 respectively.

7

Page 8 10.The application filed by the present respondent came

up before the CAT for hearing on 31

st

October, 2007.

While allowing the application of the respondent, the CAT

held that the appointment of the respondent-applicant

before it, was not liable to be terminated inter alia, but

primarily for the following reasons:-

“17. Therefore, it has been proved and

established that the instructions dated

16.05.2001 in so far as it relates to

compassionate appointment, frustrate the

very object of the scheme for

compassionate appointment. The scheme

for compassionate appointment is a

rehabilitation scheme. Therefore, the

subsequent instructions, the

application/operation of which frustrates

the very object of the scheme or make the

scheme not practically applicable, cannot

be said to be valid instruction(s).

Therefore, even if there had been any

instructions of 2001 to consider the cases

for compassionate appointment to the

extent of 5% of the approved vacancies

cleared by the screening committee

(which could not be produced by the

respondents before us), any appointment

made without following such instructions

cannot be said to be irregular

appointment. More over, the

administration should be more particular

while considering the cases of

compassionate appointment so that the

persons appointed will not be terminated

for any irregularity in the appointment. In

no case, the family which has been

provided with compassionate appointment

8

Page 9 to enable the family to meet with the

indigent conditions caused due to the

death of the employee would be put to

distress again due to the fault of the

administration. We may, at the cost of

repetition, mention that (i) when the very

instruction dated 16.05.2001 in so far as it

relates to compassionate appointment,

has been proved to be frustrating the very

object of the scheme which is a

rehabilitation scheme, even if any

appointment is made without following

such instruction, cannot or does not make

the appointment irregular. (ii) The

applicants who have been given

appointment against 2000 vacancies

following the instructions/scheme of 1998,

their appointments do not, in any way,

come within the purview of the DOPT

instructions of 2001. Therefore, their

appointments can in no way be terminated

by applying the instructions of 2001. (iii)

All the applicants who were considered

and approved and were given

compassionate appointments in 2002

cannot be terminated after they have

worked for a considerable period. More

particularly, when the scheme is a

rehabilitation scheme and the 2001

instructions in so far it relates to

compassionate appointments frustrates

the very object of the scheme and make

the scheme practically inapplicable as

mentioned vide instructions cannot be said

to be valid. For the reasons mentioned

above, it will not be out of place to

mention that in the case of Union of India

and Others vs. K.P. Tiwari [2003 SCC

(L&S) 1233] Hon’ble Supreme Court

declined to interfere with the appointment

made 5 years back and said that:

9

Page 10 “It is unnecessary in the present case

to examine either questions of law or

fact arising in the matter. Suffice to

say that the respondent was

appointment and has been in service

for more than five years. It would not

be appropriate to disturb that state of

affairs by making any other order

resulting in uprooting the respondent

from his livelihood.”

Since the appropriate instructions dated

14.06.2006 have already been issued to

consider the cases for compassionate

appointment to the extent of 5% of total

vacancies against the direct recruitment

quota, no further order is necessary to

that effect. Therefore, such appointment

which is made without following the said

instructions cannot be terminated for the

reasons mentioned above.

18.Therefore, in view of the above

discussion, we hold that the respondents

are not justified in issuing the impugned

notice of termination/order of notice to

delete the names of the applicants from

the list of approved candidates. The

applicants are entitled to continue in

service on the strength of the appointment

given to them. We, therefore, quash and

set aside the impugned orders/notices

issued by the respondents in all the

applications. Interim order granted by this

Tribunal stands absolute.”

11.Being aggrieved from the judgment of the

Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C)

No. 20655/2008 before the High Court. The High Court by

10

Page 11 that time had already disposed of Writ Petition (C) No.

15820 of 2008 filed by the Government Department

entitled Superintendent of Post Offices, Anantpur Division,

Anantpur vs. R.S. Madan Lal vide its judgment dated 23

rd

July, 2008, the subject matter in SLP(C) No. 19872/2009

which is also listed along with the present bunch of

matters. While the High Court upheld the order of the

CAT, it not only accepted its reasoning but in addition

thereto held as under:-

“We do not find any error in the above

reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. The

respondent and others who were given

appointments against vacancies arising in

2000 ignoring the scheme-1998 cannot

be removed from service, pursuant to the

instructions issued in 2001. Therefore,

the candidates who were considered and

given compassionate appointment in

2002 cannot be removed from service.

At this stage, it is pat (sic-apt) to note

that the Government taking into

consideration the difficulties being faced

by various Ministries in implementing the

scheme for compassionate appointment

issued certain instructions in memo

dated, 14.6.2006. Para-3 of the said

instructions reads thus:

“On a demand raised by Staff Side in

the Standing Committee of the

National Council (JCM) for review of

the compassionate appointment

policy, the matter has been carefully

11

Page 12 examined and taking into account

the fact that the reduction in the

number of vacancies for Group ‘C’

and ‘D’ posts (excluding technical

pots) that have arisen in the year.

Total vacancies available for making

direct recruitment would be

calculated by deducting the

vacancies to be filled on the basis of

compassionate appointment form

the vacancies available for direct

recruitment in terms of existing

orders on optimization.”

From the above, it is clear that the

vacancies meant for direct recruitment

shall have to be calculated only after

earmarking the vacancies required for

compassionate appointment. In words,

the direct recruitment vacancies shall

have to be arrived at only after deducting

the vacancies required for compassionate

appointment under the scheme. The

Tribunal while allowing the O.As, has also

taken into consideration, the

aforementioned instructions issued by the

Government of India.

Admittedly, the notice of termination

was issued on 24.11.2005, i.e., prior to

the instructions of the Government of

India, dated 14.6.2006. Therefore, the

authorities have to reconsider the matter

in the light of the instructions issued I

memo, dated 14.5.2006. The Tribunal on

a careful consideration of the relevant

material on record has rightly come to

the conclusion that the persons

appointment in the year 2002 cannot be

terminated from service. We find no

error in the order of the Tribunal

12

Page 13 warranting interference by this Court in

exercise of power of judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition fails and the same

is accordingly dismissed, at the admission

stage. No costs.”

12.As is clear from the above factual matrix of the case

that the issue revolves around the scope, interpretation

and applicability of the office memorandums issued by the

DoPT and other concerned authorities from time to time.

13.The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and

Pension, Government of India had issued a circular on 9

th

October, 1998 declaring its policy in the form of a Scheme

for Compassionate appointment under the Central

Government. This Scheme provided that the policy shall

be applicable to the family members of a government

servant who dies while in service including death by

suicide or is retired on medical grounds, but subject to

fulfilment of the conditions stated therein. It is not

necessary for us to go into other clauses of this Scheme

inasmuch as there is no dispute to other clauses except

the clause relating to prescription of percentage in relation

to direct recruitment for the purposes of compassionate

13

Page 14 appointment. It may be noticed that this Scheme of

Compassionate Appointment can be applied only to the

following;

(i)The post should be falling in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’

posts,

(ii) It should be in relation to direct recruitment as

specified.

14.The Scheme provided for power of relaxation with the

authorities in regard to age etc. Clause 7 of the Scheme

is the relevant clause with which we are concerned. The

same reads as under:-

“ 7. Determination/Availability of

Vacancies

(a) Appointment on compassionate

grounds should be made only on

regular basis and that too only if

regular vacancies meant for that

purpose are available.

(b) Compassionate appointments can

be made upto a maximum of 5% of

vacancies falling under direct

recruitment quota in any Group ‘C’ or

‘D’ post. The appointing authority

may hold back upto 5% of vacancies in

14

Page 15 the aforesaid categories to be filled by

direct recruitment through Staff

Selection Commission or otherwise so

as to fill such vacancies by appointment

on compassionate grounds. A person

selected for appointment on

compassionate grounds should be

adjusted in the recruitment roster

against the appropriate category viz.

SC/ST/OBC/General depending upon the

category to which he belongs. For

example, if he belongs to SC category

he will be adjusted against the SC

reservation point, if he is ST/OBC he will

be adjusted against ST/OBC point and if

he belongs to General category he will

be adjusted against the vacancy point

meant for General category.

(c)While the ceiling of 5% for making

compassionate appointment against

regular vacancies should not be

circumvented by making appointment

of dependent family member of

Government servant on casual/daily

wage/ad-hoc/contract basis against

regular vacancies, there is no bar to

considering him for such appointment if

he is eligible as per the normal

rules/orders governing such

appointments.

(d) The ceiling of 5% of direct

recruitment vacancies for making

compassionate appointment should not

be exceeded by (sic) any other vacancy

e.g. sports quota vacancy.

15

Page 16 (e) Employment under the scheme is

not confined to the

Ministry/Department/Office in which

deceased/medically retired Government

servant had been working. Such an

appointment can be given anywhere

under the Government of India

depending upon availability of a

suitable vacancy meant for the purpose

of compassionate appointment.

(f)If sufficient vacancies are not available

in any particular office to accommodate

the persons in the waiting list for

compassionate appointment, it is open

to the administrative

Ministry/Department/Office to take up

the matter with other Ministries/

Departments/ Offices of the

Government of India to provide at any

early date appointment on

compassionate grounds to those in the

waiting list.”

15.Before, we proceed to analyse the above clause as

well as examine its impact in view of the amended OMs of

the Government of India, we must notice that under

clause 16(c) of this Scheme, it was specifically noticed

that Scheme of Compassionate Appointment was

conceived by the Government of India as far back as

1958. Since then, a number of welfare schemes have

been introduced by the Government which has made a

16

Page 17 significant difference in the financial position of the

families of the government servants dying in

harness/retired on medical grounds.

16.Clause 16(d) further provides that a compassionate

appointment should not be denied or delayed merely on

the ground that there is re-organisation in the office of the

Ministry. The post should be made available to the

person concerned if there is a vacancy meant for

compassionate appointment and he or she is found

eligible and suitable under the Scheme. Not only this,

under clause 16(f), a compassionate appointment will

have precedence on absorption of surplus employees and

reorganisation of daily wage/casual worker with or without

temporary status.

17.Reverting to clause 7 of the Scheme, it is stipulated

under the Scheme that appointment on compassionate

grounds should be made only on regular basis and that

too if regular vacancies meant for that purpose are

available. The compassionate appointments can be made

upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct

recruitment quota in any group ‘C’ or ‘D’ post. The

17

Page 18 appointing authority may hold back upto 5% of the

vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct

recruitment through Staff Selection Commission or

otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on

compassionate grounds.

18.Clause 7(f) needs to be emphasised as it

contemplates that even if sufficient vacancies are not

available in any particular office to accommodate the

persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment,

it is open to the administrative Ministry/Department/Office

to take up the matter with other

Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India

to provide at an early date appointment on compassionate

grounds to those in the waiting list.

19.The above clauses clearly show that the Scheme of

1998 for compassionate appointment is a welfare activity

carried out by the Government of India. It is a benevolent

act on the part of the State. Keeping in view the dire

economic and social crisis to which the family of a

deceased government employee in Class ‘C’ or ‘D’ is

exposed, the government through this Scheme offers a

18

Page 19 helping hand. This is a voluntary act of generosity on the

part of the State. The generosity once extended in the

form of exercise of a subordinate legislative power by

formulating the said Scheme, will have the force of law. It

is enforceable to its limited extent and within its

prescribed parameters. The purpose of the 1998 Scheme

was to provide employment and preferably as part of the

regular cadre subject to availability of vacancies. Then

the Central Government issued Office Memorandum dated

16

th

May, 2001. This Memorandum did not refer to the

circular of 1998 as such, however, the essence of this

memorandum was that while presenting the Budget for

the year 2001-2002, the Finance Minister stated that “all

requirements of recruitment will be scrutinized to ensure

that fresh recruitment is limited to 1 per cent of total civil

staff strength. As about 3 per cent of the staff retire every

year, this will reduce the manpower by 2 per cent per

annum achieving a deduction of 10 per cent in five years

as announced by the Prime Minister.” Under clause 2.2 of

this Memorandum, it was further stated that while

preparing the Annual Recruitment Plans, the concerned

19

Page 20 screening committees would ensure that direct

recruitment does not in any case exceed 1 per cent of the

sanctioned strength of the department and accordingly

direct recruitment would be limited to 1/3

rd

of the direct

recruitment vacancies arising in the year subject to further

restriction that this will not exceed 1 per cent of the total

sanctioned strength of the department.

20.In furtherance to this Memorandum, the Government

of India, DoPT issued a clarification on the guidelines for

compassionate appointment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts on

4

th

July, 2002. It clarified that 5 per cent quota for

compassionate appointment is to be worked out with

reference to DR vacancies in each recruitment year finally

approved for filling up by the Screening Committee under

the optimisation policy of the Government contained in

Office Memorandum dated 16

th

May, 2001. In other

words, this Memorandum merely reiterated the

applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 16

th

May,

2001.

21.Finally on 14

th

June, 2006, ‘Scheme for

Compassionate Appointment under the Central

20

Page 21 Government Determination of Vacancies’ was clarified. In

this Office Memorandum, an attempt was made to clarify

the optimisation of direct recruitment to civilian posts as

contained in the Office Memorandum dated 16

th

May, 2001

to say that the recruitment does not exceed 1% of the

total sanctioned strength of the department. It noticed

that there had been a continuous reduction in the number

of vacancies for direct recruitment, thus, very few

vacancies or, in fact, no vacancies were available for

compassionate appointment. In light of this, the earlier

instructions including the instructions dated 9

th

October,

1998 stood modified to the extent mentioned therein.

22.From the above Scheme and Office Memorandum, it

is clear that where on the one hand, the State had

formulated a welfare scheme for compassionate

appointments, there on the other, because of limitations

of its financial resources it decided to take economic

measures by reducing the extent of appointment by direct

recruitment from the financial year 2001-2002. Both

these matters falling in the domain of the Government

and being matters of policy, the Court is hardly called

21

Page 22 upon to comment upon either of them. These are the

acts which fall in the domain of the State and do not call

for any judicial interference. All that we propose to hold is

that State has to abide by the Scheme it has floated for

compassionate appointment. The 1998 Scheme floated

by the Government should receive a liberal construction

and application as it is stated to be a social welfare

scheme and largely tilted in favour of the members of the

family of the deceased employee. The purpose appears to

be to provide them with recruitment on a regular basis

rather than circumvent the same by adopting any other

measure. That is the reason why the Government

specifically states in its Scheme that efforts should be

made to appoint the members of a distressed family to the

post provided he/she satisfies the other parameters stated

in the Scheme.

23.The appellant was admittedly appointed to the post,

in furtherance to the 1998 Scheme, in the year 2002

(while other appellants were appointed during the period

of 2001-2003). The instructions which specifically dealt

with the compassionate appointments were issued by

22

Page 23 office memorandum dated 4

th

July, 2002. Neither the

Memorandum dated 16

th

May, 2001 nor Memorandum

dated 4

th

July, 2002 stated that the restrictions sought to

be imposed were applicable retrospectively or even

retroactively. The rights of these persons had been

settled, the respondent and others had been appointed to

the posts and they had already worked in their respective

posts before the notice of termination were issued to them

at the end of year 2004. No data or material has been

placed by the government before us even to support the

contention that under the effect of the instructions of the

year 1998, these persons were appointed in excess of the

posts provided under the Scheme. Both these office

memorandums were expected to operate prospectively

and thus the rights which had been settled could not be

re-settled. The stand of the appellant that it was a

discrepancy or an error does not stand to any reason and

must be rejected. It is also undisputed before us that the

appointments of the respondent and others were made on

the basis of the vacancies existing against the year 2000

23

Page 24 when the instructions of 1998 were in operation, free of

any restriction.

24.In the meanwhile and as already noticed, another

office memorandum came to be issued on 14

th

June, 2006

amending the restrictions placed by the office

memorandum dated 16

th

May, 2001. The memorandum of

14

th

June, 2006 in fact requires as to how the vacancies

available for making direct recruitment are to be

calculated. It is not even the case of the appellants

before us that in face of the memorandums, this exercise

in terms of this memorandum was ever undertaken by the

appellants. It will be a contradictory stand, if on the one

hand, the appellants are permitted to treat office

memorandums including office memorandum dated 16

th

May, 2001 as retrospective while on the other they treat

office memorandum dated 14

th

June, 2006 as

prospectively. The High Court in the operative part of its

judgment has clearly observed that the authorities have to

reconsider the matter in the light of instructions issued in

the memorandum dated 14

th

June, 2006. We are unable

24

Page 25 to find any error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the said

finding returned by the High Court.

25.Despite the fact that the judgment of the Central

Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) has been

upheld by the High Court, we are unable to contribute and

sustain the view taken by the Tribunal that the

Memorandum dated 16

th

May, 2001 frustrated the very

object of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment and

on that ground alone, it was liable to be declared invalid.

As already noticed, both the matters are policy matters of

the State and for valid and proper reasons, without

infringing the spirit of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. The State can frame its policy, where it is for

economic reasons, least such decision would be open to

judicial review to that extent. In the present case, there

is some ambiguity created by issuance of office

memorandums dated 16

th

May, 2001 and 14

th

June, 2006

and the enforcement of the former vide office

memorandum dated 4

th

July, 2002 in relation to the

implementation of Compassionate Appointment Scheme

of 1998. Thus, it is not only desirable but necessary that

25

Page 26 the competent authority should issue comprehensive

guidelines squarely covering the issue, but they cannot

tamper with the existing rights of the appointees.

26.To contend that the existing status should not be

disturbed by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent heavily relied upon the judgment of this

Court in Union of India and Others v. K.P. Tiwari [(2003) 9

SCC 129], where the Court noticed in para 4 of the

judgment that “it is unnecessary in this case to examine

either questions of law or fact arising in the matter. Suffice

to say that the respondent has been appointed now and

has been in service for more than five years. We do not

think, it would be appropriate to disturb that state of

affairs by making any other order resulting in uprooting

the respondent from his livelihood”.

27.As is evident from this judgment, no law has been

stated by the Court, however it was stated that in the

facts of that case, it was not appropriate to disturb the

appointment at that stage. We may usefully refer to

another judgment of this Court in the case of Balbir Kaur

26

Page 27 and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others etc.

etc. [(2000) 6 SCC 493], where this Court held as under:-

“19. Mr Bhasme further contended that

family members of a large number of the

employees have already availed of the

Family Benefit Scheme and as such it would

be taken to be otherwise more beneficial to

the employee concerned. We are not called

upon to assess the situation but the fact

remains that having due regard to the

constitutional philosophy to decry a

compassionate employment opportunity

would neither be fair nor reasonable. The

concept of social justice is the yardstick to

the justice administration system or the

legal justice and as Roscoe Pound pointed

out the greatest virtue of law is in its

adaptability and flexibility and thus it would

be otherwise an obligation for the law courts

also to apply the law depending upon the

situation since the law is made for the

society and whatever is beneficial for the

society, the endeavour of the law court

would be to administer justice having due

regard in that direction.”

28.In the above case, the Court has placed emphasis

upon the concept of socio-economic justice and granted

relief to the appellant and, in addition, directed

employment of one of the family members.

29.In view of the above settled position of law and the

fact that the memorandums could not be given

27

Page 28 retrospective effect, we do not consider it appropriate to

interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The spirit

of the Scheme was to provide relief to the family members

of the deceased persons and thus on the yardstick of

social justice, such relief cannot be withdrawn on the

ground of some alleged discrepancy which has not been

supported by any data, is unreasonable and therefore,

even unsustainable. The appellants must state

appropriate reasons and provide the expected data on

record if they expect the Court to come to a different

conclusion. As already noticed, the appellants have

miserably failed to place any such data on the basis of the

Memorandum dated 14

th

June, 2006.

30.For the reasons afore-stated, we dismiss all these

appeals and further issue the following directions;

A) The appointments of the respondents will not be

interfered with by the appellants on the strength of

the memorandum dated 4

th

July, 2002.

B)The Office Memorandum dated 16

th

May, 2001, 14

th

June, 2006 and 4

th

July, 2002 have in relation to the

28

Page 29 1998 Scheme for Compassionate Appointment

caused some confusion on the one hand and while on

the other they have prejudicially affected the rights

of large number of heirs of the employees who died

in harness. Thus, we direct the appellants to issue

comprehensive, certain and unambiguous directions

which shall put an end to such unnecessary

controversies.

31.However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

……...….…………......................J.

(Swatanter Kumar)

.…………..................................J.

(Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)

New Delhi,

December 13, 2012

29