http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

HAKIN SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/09/1997

BENCH:

A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

THOMAS, J.

Leave granted.

This appeal by the Haryana State Electricity Board

(`the Board' for short) is in challenge of the order of the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana declaring that respondent

is entitled to be considered as eligible for appointment in

the employment of the Board on compassionate grounds.

The facts leading to this appeal are the following:

Father of the respondent one Hakim Singh was a Lineman

in the employment of the Board. He died on 24.8.1974 in

harness leaving behind him his widow and minor children

including the respondent. About 14 years after the death of

Hakim Singh his widow applied for appointing her son (the

respondent) in the employment of the Board on compassionate

grounds mainly basing on two circulars issued by the Board,

one on 26.9.1985 and the other, in partial modification of

the earlier, on 1.10.1986. As per the said circulars one

member of the family of the deceased employee could be

considered for employment in the service of the Board as a

goodwill gesture, provided request for such employment is

made within one year of the death of the employee.

Respondent who filed the writ petition in the High

Court submitted that when his father he was only four years

old and hence his mother could make the application in the

prescribed from only when he attained majority and that the

Board has not given any favourable response to the repeated

representations made in this matter. The Board took the

stand that as the application was not made within the period

specified in the circulars the Board was unable to entertain

the request for employment on compassionate ground. While

resisting the writ petition the Board cited the decision of

the same High Court dated 18.1.1995 in Sohan Lal vs. HSEB,

in support of their stand.

Learned Single Judge of the High Court distinguished

Sohan Lal's case on the premise that the claimant therein

waited for five years after attaining majority and that made

him disentitled to employment on compassionate grounds,

whereas in the present case the request was made soon after

respondent attained majority. Learned Single Judge found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

support from three other decisions of the High Court as the

facts therein were more comparable with the facts in this

case. The extended period of three years indicated in the

circular has been interpreted by the High Court to mean in

the case of a minor child as applicable from the date he

became a major. High Court has observed that "this is the

only possible way to give effect to the policy of giving

employment to the deceased employee where his dependents

happen to be minor children." Accordingly, learned Single

Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Board to

entertain the claim of the respondent.

Though the Board has filed an appeal before a Division

Bench of the High Court the same was dismissed summarily.

However, the Division Bench granted further period of three

months to the Board to comply with the directions issued by

the learned Single Judge.

During consideration of the Special Leave Petition an

endeavour was made to have the matter otherwise settled

between the parties. But learned counsel for the Board,

after taking instructions, submitted to us that a decision

on the legal position is very much warranted from this Court

as large number of similar claims are pending consideration

before the Board.

The rule of appointments to public service is that they

should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the

normal route through which one can get into a public

employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions,

there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have

been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such

exception belief is provided to the bereaved family of a

deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependents in

a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which

has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the ultimately

death of its sole bread-winner. This Court has observed time

and again that the object of providing such ameliorating

relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of

recruitment to public employment.

The first circular which afforded such a beneficial

provision to the dependants of a deceased employee was

issued by the Board on 14.9.1983 wherein it was specified

that "only one member of the family of the deceased employee

is to be considered for employment in the Board's service as

a goodwill gesture and the intention is not that the

employment is to be provided as a matter of course." In the

circular the time-limit within which the dependent of the

deceased employee is to be accommodated was fixed as one

year. The circular further stressed that "the request for

employment would be entertained only in the case in which

the widow submits application for employment immediately

after the death of her husband." On 26.9.91983 the Board

issued a circular clarifying that the purpose of such a

provision was not that employment would be given as a matter

of course. However, the Board extended the period as in the

case of a widow with minor children from one year to three

years "provided a request for giving such employment is made

to the Board within one year of the death of the employee."

High Court relied on an earlier decision of the same

High Court in which after considering the same circulars it

was observed thus:

"Neither in the service of the

Haryana Government nor in the

service of the respondent-Board a

person below the age of 18 years

can be given employment. Therefore,

if a deceased employee is survived

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

by minors, it is impossible to give

effect to the condition

incorporated in the circulars of

the Board dated 26.9.1985 and

1.10.1986, which requires

submission of application within

three years of the death of the

employee. A condition which is

impossible to be performed is

ordinarily liable to be treated as

arbitrary and unconstitutional but

if such condition can be given a

reasonable meaning so as to avoid

the charge of unconstitutionality

that interpretation has to be

preferred. Therefore, the

instructions contained in the

circulars dated 26.9.1985 and

1.10.1986 will have to be

interpreted to mean that in case of

a minor child the period of three

years would be applicable from the

date he becomes major."

Learned Single Judge followed the aforesaid

observations and issued the impugned directions to the

Board.

We are of the view that the High Court has erred in

over stretching the scope of the compassionate relief

provided by the Board in the circulars as above. It appears

that High Court would have treated the provision as a lien

created by the Board for a dependent of the deceased

employee. If the family members of the deceased employee can

manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal

heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of

succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object

of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give

succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial

crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely

demise of its sole earning member.

This Court has considered the scope of the aforesaid

circulars in Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh

Tanwar and Anr. etc. etc [1996 (2) JT 542].

In that case widow of a deceased employee made an

application almost twelve years after the death of her

husband requesting for accommodating her son in the

employment of the Board, but it was rejected by the Board.

When she moved the High court the Board was directed to

appoint him on compassionate grounds. This Court upset the

said directions of the High Court following two earlier

decisions rendered by this Court, one in Umesh Kumar Nagpal

vs. State of Haryana & ors. [1994 (4) SCC 138], the other in

Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar & anr. [1996 (1) SCC 301].

In the former, a Bench of two Judges has pointed out that

"the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to

enable to 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 the post held by the deceased." In the latter

decision, which also was rendered by a Bench of two Judges,

it was observed that "the very object of appointment of a

dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to

relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to

the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the

family." The learned Judges pointed out that if the claim of

the dependent which was preferred long after the death of

the deceased employee is to be countenanced it would amount

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of the

deceased government servant "which cannot be encouraged,

dehors the recruitment rules."

It is clear that the High Court has gone wrong in

giving a direction to the Board to consider the claim of the

respondent as the request was made far beyond the period

indicated in the circular of the Board dated 1.10.1986.

Respondent, if he is interested in getting employment in the

Board, has to pass through the normal route now.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the

impugned judgment of the High Court.