The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs Bheemesh alias Bheemappa

Interpretation of statutes: 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 – A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Every appointment to a post or service must be made strictly by adhering to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment on compassionate grounds, is an exception to the regular mode of recruitment, as it is intended to provide succor to the family of the deceased Government servant, which is thrown out of gear both financially and otherwise, due to the sudden death of the Government servant in harness. [Para 7][128-H; 129-A-B]

2. Admittedly, the appointment on compassionate grounds in the State of Karnataka is governed by a set of Rules known as Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate grounds) Rules, 1996, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) read with Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. The Rules as they stood, on the date on which the sister of the respondent died in harness, did not include an unmarried brother, within the definition of the expression “dependant of a deceased Government servant” under Rule 2(1)(a) of the said Rules vis-a-vis a deceased female unmarried Government servant. But it was only by way of an amendment proposed under a draft Notification dated 20.06.2012 which was given effect under the final Notification bearing No. DPAR 55 SCA 2012, Bangalore dated 11.07.2012 that an unmarried brother of a deceased female unmarried Government servant was included within the definition. There is no dispute about the fact that the sister of the respondent died as an unmarried female Government servant, but on 8.12.2010, before the amendment was made to the Rules. [Para 8][129-B-E]

State Bank of India vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019) 5 SCC 600 : [2019] 3 SCR 718 – referred to.

3. It is no doubt true that there are, two lines of decisions rendered by Benches of equal strength. But the apparent conflict between those two lines of decisions, was on account of the difference between an amendment by which an existing benefit was withdrawn or diluted and an amendment by which the existing benefit was enhanced. The interpretation adopted by this Court varied depending upon the nature of the amendment. [Para 12][130-G]

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish

Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157 – referred to.

4. In cases where the benefit under the existing Scheme was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit, this Court directed the application of the new Scheme. But in cases where the benefits under an existing Scheme were enlarged by a modified Scheme after the death of the employee, this Court applied only the Scheme that was in force on the date of death of the employee. This is fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law. [Para 17][134-F-G]

5. If compassionate appointment is one of the conditions of service and is made automatic upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of scrutiny whatsoever, the same would be treated as a vested right in law. But it is not so. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic, but subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. Therefore, no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Though there is a conflict of opinion in decisions as to whether the Scheme in force on the date of death of the employee would apply or the Scheme in force on the date of consideration of the application of appointment on compassionate grounds would apply, there is certainly no conflict about the underlying concern reflected in the above decisions. 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. [Para 18][134-H; 135-A-D]

6. 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 next date namely the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. 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. [Para 19][135-D-F]

7. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor. [Para 19][136-A-C]

8. Coming to the case on hand, the employee died on 8.12.2010 and the amendment to the Rules was proposed by way of a draft notification on 20.06.2012. The final notification was issued on 11.07.2012. Merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issue of the amendment, the respondent could not have sought the benefit of the amendment. The Judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Akkamahadevamma on which the Tribunal as well as the High Court placed reliance, was not applicable to the case of compassionate appointments, as the amendment in Akkamahadevamma came as a result of the existing rule being declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [Para 20][136-C-E]

State of Karnataka v. Akkamahadevamma and others decided by Division Bench of Karnataka High Court on 18.11.2010 on Writ Petition No.20914 of 2010 etc – held inapplicable.