Applicability Of An Amended Rule For Compassionate Appointment Shall Be Based On Date Of Death Rather Than Date Of Consideration Of Claim: Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian refused to hold that Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (7th amendment) Rules, 2012 can be applied retrospectively so as to provide, a person seeking compassionate appointment, the enhanced benefits of a new amendment. It further reiterated that compassionate appointments cannot be treated as a vested right in law.

Factual Background

The respondent's sister died in harness (prior to retirement) on 08.12.2010. At the time of her death she was serving as an Assistant Teacher in a Government School. Her mother, two sisters, and two brothers, including the respondent were dependent on her income. The respondent made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The competent authority rejected the claim on 17/21.11.2012 on the ground that the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (7th amendment) Rules, 2012, which extended the benefit of compassionate appointment to unmarried dependant brother of an unmarried female employee came into existence on 20.06.2012, long after the respondent's sister had passed away. On denial of his claim the respondent approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which applied the amendment retrospectively and allowed the application. The State filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court. It dismissed the appeal on the basis of the judgment passed by its Division Bench in State of Karnataka v. Akkamahadevamma and Ors., wherein Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) (57th Amendment) Rules, 2000 was applied retrospectively.

Analysis of the Supreme Court

Distinguished Akkamahadevamma's judgement

The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Akkamahadevamma (supra) interpreted the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) (57th Amendment) Rules, 2000 to be applied retrospectively, in a context wherein the unamended Rules were held to be unconstitutional by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

"In any case an amendment brought forth, on the basis of a Judgment of a Court or Tribunal, holding the exclusion of certain categories of persons to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, may receive an interpretation such as the one proposed by the High Court in Akkamahadevamma. But the same may not be applicable to amendments of the nature that we are concerned with in this case."

Moreover, the said amendment was with respect to 'project displaced persons' and not for 'persons seeking appointment on compassionate ground'.

Date of death or Date of consideration of the claim to be applied - conflict of opinion

Senior Advocate, Mr. Jayanth Muthraj appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that there are two lines of judgments of the Supreme Court with respect to appointment on compassionate ground. One line considers that the Rules as on the date of death would be applicable and another line considers that the Rules as on the date of consideration of the claim would be applicable. He apprised the Court that a Division Bench had already referred the said issue to a larger bench in State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019) 5 SCC 600 on 08.02.2019.

Referring to a catena of judgments the Court noted that, the conflict in the line of decisions was because of the interpretation that the Court resorted to depending on the nature of amendment - the amendments where the existing benefit was withdrawn or diluted and those where the existing benefit was enhanced. It observed that in cases where the amendment diluted the benefit, the Court had directed the application of the amended Rules and in cases where the amendment enhanced the existing benefit, the Court had directed the application of the unamended Rules. Elucidating the rationale behind this approach, the Bench stated -

"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."

Considering that the fulcrum of the conflict was the two dates - date of death and date of consideration of claim, the Court observed that the date of death was a fixed factor, whereas, the date of consideration was a variable factor. The Court was of the view that applicability of a rule ought not to be interpreted to be based on a variable factor.

"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…"

Accordingly, the Court decided that the applicability of the amended rules are to be considered from the date of death rather than the date of consideration of claim.

"Therefore, we are of the considered view that 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."

Compassionate appointments cannot be treated as a vested right in law

The Court clarified that compassionate appointments are not vested right in law, as it is not automatic and is subjected to strict scrutiny of various parameters, such as, financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee, the avocation of the other members of the family.

[Case Title: The Secretary of Govt. Department of Education (Primary) And Ors. v. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021]

Citation : LL 2021 SC 755