UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus AMRITA SINHA

[2021] 9 S.C.R. 602

[2021] 9 S.C.R.

AUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

AMRITA SINHA

(Civil Appeal Nos 7640-7641 of 2021)

BDECEMBER 11, 2021[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUDAND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Held: Inevaluating claim for compassionate appointment, it is open to theCauthorities to evaluate the financial position of the family upon thedeath while in service – If the scheme requires that the family pensionmust be taken into account in evaluating the merits of an applicationseeking compassionate appointment, it has to be followed.

Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Nature of – Held:DIt is not matter of right, but is to enable the family to tide over animmediate crisis which may result from the death of the employee.CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.7640-7641 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2018 of the High CourtEof Judicature at Madras in W.P. No.15982 of 2017 and W.M.P. No.17280of 2017.

Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, S. S. Rizvi, Ms. Vaishali Verma, Ms.Seema Bengani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.

FRabin Majumder, Adv. for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was passed:

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

G2. Leave granted.

3. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras,by its judgment dated 26 April 2018, has affirmed the judgment andorder of the Central Administrative Tribunal[1], directing the appellants to

H1 “Tribunal”

reconsider the claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionategrounds for post corresponding to her qualifications against vacanciesfor 2014-15.

4. The spouse of the respondent was holding the rank of Sargentin the Indian Air Force. During the course of his employment, he dieddue to cancer on 6 January 2008, leaving behind the respondent and twominor children. An application was filed by the respondent seekingcompassionate appointment, but, it was rejected on 17 February 2011. Asubsequent application which was filed on 11 February 2014 was alsorejected on 16 June 2015 on the ground that the respondent had securedmerit points which did not enable her to obtain compassionateappointment.

5. The Union of India in the Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) issuedan OM[2] on 9 October 1998 titled “Scheme of Compassionate Appointmentunder the Central Government”. On 22 January 2010, the Governmentof India in the Ministry of Defence[3] issued an OM[4] titled “Scheme ofCompassionate Appointment Relative Merit, Point and Revised Procedurefor Selection”. This was followed by another OM[5] of the MoD dated 14May 2010.

6. Following the death of her husband, the respondent was in thereceipt of family pension in the amount of Rs 8,265 per month. Thetotal terminal benefits which were paid to the respondent were in theamount of Rs 22,91,568. The case of the respondent for compassionateappointment was evaluated and merit points were assigned under variousheads in terms of the procedure which was prescribed by the MoD. Therespondent, however, submitted that the family pension at the aboverate was payable from 7 January 2008 to 6 January 2018, after whichthe amount of pension would stand reduced to Rs 4,959 per month. Onthis basis, the respondent submitted before the Tribunal that she shouldhave been awarded 16 merit points instead of 10 against the head offamily pension. The Tribunal observed that the denial of compassionateappointment on the ground that the respondent was drawing monthlypension of Rs 8,265 on the date of consideration of the case was not

2 OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D)

3 “MoD”

4 F.No.19(3/2009/D)(Lab)

5 F.No.19(3/2009/D)(Lab)

Ajustifiable as pension is paid for the service rendered by deceasedemployee. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the quantum of pensionwould stand reduced with effect from 7 January 2018 to Rs 4,959 permonth and since the deceased employee had died due to terminalillness, the family “might be in debt” and “might have sold the propertyfor his treatment”, while, at the same time, observing that it was notBgoing into those aspects. On this basis, the letter of rejection was quashedand the appellants were directed to reconsider the case. The High Court,while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, has held that the authoritieshave erred in taking into account the family pension in the monthly income,since this was an ad hoc income earned by the respondent, instead ofCconsidering the regular pension which would be earned with effect from7 January 2018.

7. We have heard Ms Madhavi Divan, Additional Solicitor Generalappearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr Rabin Majumder, Counselappearing on behalf of the respondent.D

8. Ms Madhavi Divan submitted that the case of the respondentwas considered strictly within the parameters of the OM and merit pointswere assigned. It has been urged that the authorities were justified intaking into account the family pension which was being earned as on thedate of the consideration of the application and the fact that theEpensionary payments would be reduced after lapse of ten years wouldnot be ground to reassign the merit points in accordance with theScheme. That apart, it was urged that the claim of the respondent hadalready been rejected on 17 February 2011 and even after fresh claimwas made for compassionate appointment, it was evaluated in terms ofthe Policy and the respondent was found not to be entitled to appointmentFon compassionate basis.

9. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of therespondent that the case of the respondent was that the merit pointswhich were assigned to her were incorrectly computed having due regardto the fact that the family pension of Rs 8,265 per month which becameGpayable from 7 January 2008 would be reassessed at Rs 4,959 per monthwith effect from 7 January 2018. Mr Rabin Majumder placed relianceon the judgment of the Tribunal and has urged that having due regard tothe financial condition of the respondent, the Court may not interferewith the judgment of the Tribunal on humanitarian grounds.

10. While assessing the rival submissions, it becomes necessary,at the outset, to consider the reasons which weighed with the Tribunalsince it is the view of the Tribunal which has been held not to sufferfrom error by the High Court. Under the policy document, whichembodies the Scheme for considering cases for compassionateappointment, points are awarded under diverse heads. The monthlypension which was payable to the respondent was required to be takeninto account in the award of merit points. The Tribunal, however, cameto the conclusion that pension is paid for past service rendered by theemployee and, hence, denial of compassionate appointment on that basiswas not justifiable. This reasoning of the Tribunal is fallacious.Undoubtedly, pension is not an act of bounty, but is towards the servicewhich has been rendered by an employee. However, in evaluating aclaim for compassionate appointment, it is open to the authorities toevaluate the financial position of the family upon the death while in service.Compassionate appointment is not vested right. It is provided in orderto enable family to tide over financial crisis caused by the death of itswage-earner while in service. If the scheme requires that the familypension must be taken into account in evaluating the merits an application,it has to be followed.11. In the present case, the family pension which was payable ason the date of the consideration of the application has been taken intoaccount. The fact that the pension would be up for revision in terms ofthe policy after decade was not reason to discard the pensionarypayment which was being made towards family pension on the date ofthe consideration of the application for compassionate appointment.

12. Compassionate appointment is not matter of right, but is toenable the family to tide over an immediate crisis which may result fromthe death of the employee. If the policy of the government envisagesthat the family pension would be paid for ten years after which itwould have to be modified, it cannot be said that by taking into accountthe present pensionary payment, the authorities have considered anextraneous circumstance. The same criterion is applied even handedlyto all applicants seeking compassionate appointment.

13. The High Court has affirmed the view of the Tribunal bycoming to the conclusion that the payment which was being made to therespondent was ad hoc in nature and was wrongly considered by theauthorities while awarding merit points. This line of reasoning of the

AHigh Court is equally erroneous as that of the Tribunal. The payment ofthe family pension was not an ad hoc amount, but, was evidently inaccordance with the applicable service rules. The application of therespondent was initially rejected in 2011 and was, thereafter, againreconsidered in 2014. Absent case of palpable arbitrariness, we are ofthe view that there was no reason for the High Court or the Tribunal toBinterfere with the evaluation which was conducted by the authorities interms of the applicable guidelines. Moreover, we are clearly of the viewthat the grant of compassionate appointment would not be in accordancewith the basic purpose and object of such scheme.

14. For the above reasons, we allow the appeals and set aside theCimpugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 26 April 2018.The OA[6] filed by the respondent shall, in the circumstances, standdismissed.

15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeals allowed.

6 OA No 310/01721/2015