Service Law: Compassionate appointment – By impugned order of High Court, respondent was granted benefit of compassionate appointment on account of demise of his father who was working with the appellants – Challenged by appellantDepartment on the ground that father of respondent was not regular employee and was merely granted equivalent benefits on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and therefore, respondent was not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment – Held: There is no error in the view of High Court that the appointment of father of respondent was against the regular vacancy though it continued to be termed as a ‘Part Time’ appointment apart from the fact that his work hours were of a regular employee entitling him to equal pay for equal work – During his 13 long years of employment and before that having battled the appellants for 6 years to get his dues, the deceased employee was also transferred from one department to the other, normally an aspect which would be associated with a person who had a regular employment – The most significant aspect was that had the deceased employee not been considered a regular appointee, there would have been no occasion for the Department to volunteer his services to the State Election Commission to perform election duties, which is done only by a Government employee, as is specified under s.159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 – Further, at least two persons were employed in a similar scenario whose father and husband respectively died in harness as Part Time tubewell operators – It is apparent that there is an discrimination against the respondent possibly arising from the previous litigation between the appellants and the deceased father of the respondent – There is no satisfactory explanation for the same – No interference with the order of High Court called for. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High court noted the contention that though the father of the respondent was termed as a Part Time tubewell operator but he was always treated as a regular employee. The order of appointment in the case of the father of the respondent was found to be unambiguous in its terms in accordance with norms after verification of all his certificates. A complete process of selection was conducted by the appellants as the employer. At the first instance, appointment was denied to him on account of he not being a resident of the command area of the tubewell concerned but this ground was found unsustainable by the judicial view taken by the High Court by an earlier order dated 29.01.2003 and consequently the father of the respondent was appointed. It is in these given facts of the case that it has been found that the benefit should be made available to the respondent under the Rules. The facts have been found sufficient by the High Court to come to the conclusion that the appointment of the father of the respondent was against a regular vacancy and that is why in that background from the inception regular pay-scale was allowed to him and he thus satisfied the parameters of the Rules aforesaid. [Para 8][350-B-F]
2. During his 13 long years of employment and before that having battled the appellants for the period of 6 years to get his dues, the father of the respondent was also transferred from one department to the other, normally an aspect which would be associated with a person who had a regular employment. The most significant aspect is that had the father of the respondent not been considered a regular appointee, there would be no occasion for the Department to volunteer his services to the State Election Commission to perform election duties, which could have been done only by a Government employee, as is specified under Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (“Staff of certain authorities to be made available for election work”). The present case is thus one which is peculiar in its given factual scenario which for all practical purposes, it is a case of an appointment against a regular vacancy. The respondent’s father was treated as a regular employee by the aforesaid conduct of the appellants even though he was labelled as a Part Time tubewell operator. Further, at least 2 persons were employed in a similar scenario whose father and husband respectively died in harness as Part Time tubewell operators. It is quite obvious that there is an discrimination against the respondent possibly arising from the previous litigation between the appellants and the deceased father of the respondent. There is no satisfactory explanation for the same and we cannot permit the appellantDepartment to harass the respondent in this manner. [Paras 1012][351-A-F]
Gen. Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi & Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 205 : [2009] 9 SCR 791 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.