Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court clarifies “Suitable Employment” in Suneel Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 02 August 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2022 (Arising from Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3987 of 2022)

Judges: Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy

When a government employee passes away, what kind of job is the dependent entitled to? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning compassionate appointment, clarifying the meaning of “suitable employment” under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The Court was tasked with determining whether a dependent of a deceased Class-IV employee was entitled to a Class-III post based on their educational qualifications.

Case Background

The appellant’s father, a Class-IV employee (Sweeper) at the Office of Vikas Khand Khutam, Jaunpur, U.P., passed away on November 23, 2016. The appellant, a graduate with computer literacy, applied for a compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

Initially, the appellant was offered the post of Sweeper, the same position his father held. However, he rejected this offer, seeking a Class-III post, specifically that of Gram Panchayat Officer. The respondents rejected his request, leading to a series of legal challenges.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially approached the court after his request for a Class-III post was rejected. The court directed the respondents to reconsider his representation. However, the respondents again rejected his request. This led to another writ petition, which was ultimately decided against the appellant by the High Court. The High Court’s decision was based on the Supreme Court’s view in State of Uttar Pradesh And Others versus Premlata, (2022) 1 SCC 30, which interpreted “suitable employment” under the rules.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Rule 5 states:

“[5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased. -(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person – (i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, (ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and (iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant: Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death.]”

The rule provides for the appointment of a family member of a deceased government servant to a “suitable employment” if they meet certain qualifications. The key point of contention is the meaning of “suitable employment” and whether it should be based on the qualifications of the applicant or the post held by the deceased.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court’s decision was based on a misinterpretation of Rule 5, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Premlata (supra).
• He contended that the term “suitable employment” should not be limited to the post held by the deceased employee.
• He submitted that the court should consider the educational qualifications of the dependent.
• He further argued that the guidelines issued by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.2228(SS) 2014, Prakash Agarwal Vs. Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, which stated that appointment on a Class III post cannot be refused merely on the ground that the deceased was a Class III/IV employee, and that appointment has to be offered according to the qualification and suitability of the candidate, were not considered.
• He also pointed out that the post of Gram Panchayat Officer does not fall under the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission.
• Alternatively, he requested that if the court does not accept his contention for a Class III post, he should at least be given the job of Sweeper.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the reference to the guidelines by the appellant was misplaced as they were based on orders passed by the Government following the High Court’s view in Prakash Agarwal’s case.
• The respondent contended that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but is meant to provide immediate relief to a bereaved family.
• The respondent submitted that the interpretation of “suitable employment” should be with reference to the post held by the deceased employee.
• The respondent also argued that since the appellant rejected the offer of the Sweeper post, there might not be a vacancy to accommodate him.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether the term “suitable employment” in Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, should be interpreted with reference to the post held by the deceased employee or the qualifications of the dependent.
2. Whether the appellant should be appointed as a Sweeper, given that he had previously rejected the offer.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• State of Uttar Pradesh And Others versus Premlata, (2022) 1 SCC 30 – Supreme Court of India. The court relied on this case to interpret the term “suitable employment” with reference to the post held by the deceased employee.
• State of Himachal Pradesh and Another versus Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the respondent to argue that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment.
• W.P.(C) No.2228(SS) 2014, Prakash Agarwal Vs. Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad – High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. This case was referred to by the appellant to state that appointment on a Class III post cannot be refused merely on the ground that the deceased was a Class III/IV employee.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 – This rule provides for the compassionate appointment of a family member of a deceased government servant.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ State of Uttar Pradesh And Others versus Premlata, (2022) 1 SCC 30: The court followed this judgment, stating that the words “suitable employment” in Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee.

✓ State of Himachal Pradesh and Another versus Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653: The court agreed with the principle that compassionate appointment is not meant to be a source of recruitment, but to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family.

✓ W.P.(C) No.2228(SS) 2014, Prakash Agarwal Vs. Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad: The court did not accept the appellant’s argument based on this case, stating that the guidelines were not statutory rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the need to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and should not be treated as a means to secure a job commensurate with the dependent’s qualifications. The Court also weighed the fact that the appellant’s father was a Class-IV employee and that the concept of “suitable employment” should be interpreted in that context. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the appellant’s claim was not afflicted with such delay as should deprive him and the family of the deceased of relief of the appellant being appointed as a Sweeper.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the appellant’s argument that the term “suitable employment” should be interpreted with reference to the qualifications of the dependent. However, the court rejected this argument, relying on its previous judgment in Premlata (supra). The court reasoned that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family, and not to provide a job based on the qualifications of the dependent. The court also considered the fact that the appellant’s father was a Class-IV employee and that the concept of “suitable employment” should be interpreted in that context.

The court also considered the appellant’s alternative argument that he should be appointed as a Sweeper, given that he had previously rejected the offer. The court accepted this argument, stating that the appellant’s claim was not afflicted with such delay as should deprive him and the family of the deceased of relief of the appellant being appointed as a Sweeper.

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the interpretation of “suitable employment” and the need to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has misinterpreted and misconstrued Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules and in observing and holding that the “suitable post” under Rule 5 of the Dying -In-Harness Rules, 1974 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate and the appointment on compassionate ground is to offered considering the educational qualification of the dependent. As observed hereinabove, such an interpretation would defeat the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.”

“We cannot eclipse the dimension that the whole purport of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to reach immediate relief to the bereaved family. In such circumstances, the meaning placed on the words “suitable employment” bearing in mind the post held by the deceased employee cannot be said to be an unreasonable or incorrect view.”

“It may be true that there were rounds of litigation but as we have already noticed bearing in mind the date of the death of the employee, the claim of the appellant may not be said to be afflicted with such delay as should deprive him and the family of the deceased of relief of the appellant being appointed as a Sweeper, a right which is given under the statutory Rule.”

Key Takeaways

• The term “suitable employment” in compassionate appointment rules should be interpreted with reference to the post held by the deceased employee, not the qualifications of the dependent.
• Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but a means to provide immediate relief to a bereaved family.
• Even if a dependent initially rejects an offer of appointment, they may still be considered for the same post if their claim is not afflicted with undue delay.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent No.3, District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Jaunpur, U.P., to appoint the appellant to the post of Sweeper within eight weeks from the date of production of the copy of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the term “suitable employment” under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, should be interpreted with reference to the post held by the deceased employee, not the qualifications of the dependent. This reinforces the existing legal position as laid down in Premlata (supra).

Conclusion

In Suneel Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified that “suitable employment” for compassionate appointment should be based on the post held by the deceased employee, not the dependent’s qualifications. The Court directed the appointment of the appellant as a Sweeper, emphasizing that compassionate appointment aims to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family. This judgment reinforces the principle that compassionate appointments are not a source of recruitment.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Compassionate Appointment

Child Category: Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974

Parent Category: Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974

Child Category: Rule 5, Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974

FAQ

Q: What is compassionate appointment?

A: Compassionate appointment is a scheme that provides a job to a family member of a government employee who dies while in service. This is done to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family.

Q: What does “suitable employment” mean in the context of compassionate appointment?

A: According to this Supreme Court judgment, “suitable employment” refers to a job that is similar to the one held by the deceased employee, not necessarily a job that matches the qualifications of the dependent.

Q: Can a dependent claim a higher post based on their qualifications?

A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. The dependent cannot claim a higher post based on their qualifications, but rather the appointment should be similar to the post held by the deceased employee.

Q: What happens if the dependent rejects the initial offer of employment?

A: Even if the dependent rejects the initial offer, they may still be considered for the same post if their claim is not affected by undue delay.

Q: What is the main takeaway from this judgment?

A: The main takeaway is that compassionate appointments are primarily for providing immediate relief to the family of a deceased government employee and are not a means to secure a job based on the qualifications of the dependent. The term “suitable employment” must be interpreted with reference to the post held by the deceased employee.