Supreme Court clarifies “suitable post” for compassionate appointment: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Premlata (2021)

Date of the Judgment: October 5, 2021

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6003 of 2021

Judges: M. R. Shah, J., A. S. Bopanna, J.

Can a dependent of a deceased government employee claim a higher post based on their qualifications for compassionate appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying that “suitable post” in compassionate appointment rules relates to the position held by the deceased employee, not just the applicant’s qualifications. This judgment sets aside a High Court order that favored considering the applicant’s educational qualifications over the deceased’s position.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M. R. Shah and A. S. Bopanna, delivered the judgment. The court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment, aimed at providing immediate relief to a family facing financial hardship after the death of its breadwinner.

Case Background

The respondent, Premlata, is the widow of a government employee who worked as a Messenger (Class-IV) in the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Department. Her husband passed away on November 7, 2014.

Following her husband’s death, Premlata applied for a compassionate appointment. Initially, she sought the position of Assistant Operator, but this was denied because she did not meet the eligibility criteria. Subsequently, she applied for the post of Workshop Hand, a Grade-III position. Although she was given an opportunity, she failed the physical fitness test required for this role. Consequently, she was offered the post of Messenger, equivalent to her husband’s position. However, she refused this offer, insisting on a Grade-III post based on her educational qualifications.

The matter reached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A single judge dismissed her petition, stating that since her husband was a Class-IV employee, she could only be offered a Class-IV post. However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, directing the authorities to consider her for a Grade-III post, based on her educational qualifications. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad initially heard the case before a single judge, who dismissed the writ petition filed by Premlata. The single judge reasoned that since the deceased employee was a Class-IV employee, his dependent could only be offered a Class-IV position.

Aggrieved by this decision, Premlata appealed to a Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench overturned the single judge’s order, ruling that the term “suitable post” in the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, should be interpreted based on the qualifications of the applicant, not the post held by the deceased employee. The Division Bench directed the authorities to consider Premlata’s candidature for a Grade-III post, given her educational qualifications (Bachelor’s Degree in Arts and Bachelor’s Degree in Education).

The State of Uttar Pradesh, dissatisfied with the Division Bench’s decision, then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. This rule provides for the appointment of a dependent of a deceased government employee on a “suitable post.”

The core issue is the definition of “suitable post.” The High Court Division Bench interpreted it to mean a post that matches the educational qualifications of the applicant. In contrast, the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that it should be a post commensurate with the position held by the deceased employee.

The Supreme Court also considered the general principles governing compassionate appointments. These principles emphasize that such appointments are an exception to the general rule of public employment and are meant to provide immediate relief to families in financial distress.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Uttar Pradesh (Appellants):

• The State argued that the High Court misinterpreted Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. They contended that “suitable post” should be linked to the object of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial hardship due to the death of the breadwinner.
• It was submitted that compassionate appointment cannot be equated with regular recruitment. The “suitable post” should be considered in relation to the post held by the deceased employee and cannot be a higher post.
• The State argued that the educational qualifications of the dependent should be considered in relation to the post held by the deceased employee.
• The State pointed out that the respondent had earlier applied for the post of Sub-Inspector, for which she did not possess the required qualification. When she applied for the post of Workshop Hand, she failed the physical examination. Therefore, she was offered the next lower post of Messenger, which she refused.
• The State also submitted that as per the circular dated 24.11.2015, only one opportunity was required to be given for appointment on any post to the dependent of the deceased. The respondent failed to avail the opportunity twice.
• The State contended that the High Court erred in holding that the “suitable post” under Rule 5 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate.

Arguments by Premlata (Respondent):

• The respondent argued that the Division Bench of the High Court rightly interpreted Rule 5 of the Rules 1974, which should mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate.
• It was submitted that the High Court had not directed the appointment of the respondent as Workshop Hand, but had directed to consider her case for any other suitable post in Grade-III, keeping in view her qualifications.
• The respondent argued that the circular dated 24.11.2015, granting only one opportunity for compassionate appointment, should not apply to her case as she had applied prior to the said circular.
• It was further submitted that while determining “suitability” under the provisions of Rules 1974, Rule 5 of the said rules should be read harmoniously with Rule 8, which requires the candidate to maintain minimum standards of work and efficiency.
• The respondent contended that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted in cases of compassionate appointments, which are exempted from the requirements of ordinary recruitment procedures.
• It was argued that there is no bar for the appointment of a dependent at a higher post than was held by the deceased. Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 provides that the appellant may be given a suitable employment in government service on a post except the post within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules.
• The respondent argued that she should not be denied the appointment as Workshop Hand on the ground that she failed to pass the physical test. The suitability of a post may be determined on the basis of educational qualification and/or other criteria.
• The respondent submitted that while it is true that once a post is accepted on account of compassionate appointment, no right may be claimed to further or later apply for a higher post, the facts in the present case are peculiar. The specialized post of Workshop Hand requires, in addition to requisite educational qualification, a physical test. The respondent’s failure to pass the physical test makes her ineligible for this particular post. However, the post of Messenger being offered is disproportionate to her educational qualifications. Therefore, the respondent may be considered for an alternate or suitable post within Grade-III wherein such specific recruitment of the physical test may not be applicable as the down gradation of the post would render her educational qualification futile.
• The respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Phoolwati (Smt) vs. Union of India and Others [1991 Supp (2) SCC 689].

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly interpreted Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, by holding that the “suitable post” under the said rule would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate, irrespective of the post held by the deceased employee?

The Supreme Court also dealt with the sub-issue as to whether the respondent could claim a higher post than that of her deceased husband.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. [(2020) 7 SCC 617]* to reiterate the principles governing compassionate appointments.
• The Supreme Court followed State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653]* to emphasize the object of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate relief and not to grant a post equivalent to the deceased’s position.
• The Supreme Court considered Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC [(2005) 10 SCC 289]* to highlight that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment.
• The Supreme Court relied on Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]* to emphasize that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment.
• The Supreme Court noted Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384]* to reiterate that the financial position of the family should be evaluated.
• The Supreme Court noted that the respondent relied on Phoolwati (Smt) vs. Union of India and Others [1991 Supp (2) SCC 689]*, but did not specify how it was used in the reasoning.
• The Supreme Court referred to Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. vs. V. Somashree (Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021)* to summarize the principles governing compassionate appointment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The fundamental principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment.
• The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial hardship due to the death of the breadwinner, not to provide a post based on the dependent’s qualifications.
• The interpretation of “suitable post” in Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, should be linked to the post held by the deceased employee.
• The need to maintain a distinction between compassionate appointment and regular recruitment.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation, stating that it would defeat the object and purpose of compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief to the family and not to grant a post based on the dependent’s qualifications.

The Court also considered the fact that the respondent was offered the post of Messenger, which was equivalent to her husband’s position, but she refused it. The Court held that the appellants were justified in offering the post of Messenger.

The Court observed, “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.”

The Court further noted, “In a given case it may happen that the dependent of the deceased employee who has applied for appointment on compassionate ground is having the educational qualification of Class-II or Class-I post and the deceased employee was working on the post of Class/Grade-IV and/or lower than the post applied, in that case the dependent/applicant cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post.”

The court also stated, “As observed above, appointment on compassionate ground is provided out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that some source of livelihood is provided and family would be able to make both ends meet.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointment is not a right but an exception to the general rule of public employment.
• The term “suitable post” in compassionate appointment rules should be interpreted in relation to the post held by the deceased employee, not just the applicant’s qualifications.
• Dependents of deceased government employees cannot claim a higher post than that of the deceased as a matter of right, even if they meet the eligibility criteria for such a higher post.
• The primary objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family in financial distress, not to provide a post equivalent to the deceased’s position.
• This judgment clarifies the scope of compassionate appointment and sets a precedent for future cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court order and restoring the single judge’s order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion on specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term “suitable post” in compassionate appointment rules should be interpreted in relation to the post held by the deceased employee and not just the qualifications of the applicant. This judgment clarifies that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and is primarily aimed at providing immediate relief to the family in financial distress. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on compassionate appointments and clarifies the interpretation of “suitable post”.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Premlata clarifies the interpretation of “suitable post” in compassionate appointment cases. The Court held that the term should be linked to the post held by the deceased employee, not just the applicant’s qualifications. This decision reinforces the purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate relief to families facing financial hardship due to the death of a breadwinner. The judgment sets aside the High Court’s order and restores the single judge’s decision, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and should not be treated as a regular recruitment process.