9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he consideration for appointment of compassionate ground is contrary to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it is only in the nature of concession and, therefore, it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian ground. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar [ 2010 (2) TMI 1311 - SUPREME COURT ] had an occasion to discuss the object of the compassionate appointment scheme and clarified the judgment in the case of Jaspal Kaur [ 2007 (2) TMI 581 - SUPREME COURT ]. It was held that the appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. It was further held that there is no vested right for compassionate appointment and therefore, the policy enforce at the time of consideration of application would apply and not the sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of the apex Court. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpa v. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 138, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das (2008) 15 SCC 560, Union of India and another v. B. Kishan (2011) 4 Scale 298, State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali (1994) 4 SCC 448, SBI and others v. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571 and State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 the apex Court has been pleased to held that the consideration for appointment of compassionate ground is contrary to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it is only in the nature of concession and, therefore, it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian ground. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 3. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 had an occasion to discuss the object of the compassionate appointment scheme and clarified the judgment in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra). It was held that the appointment under the scheme can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are 'vested' when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights. 15. The Court considered various aspects of service jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as a matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the family, etc., the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme. In case the Scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim that his case is to be considered as per the Scheme existing on the date the cause of action had arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on the post. In State Bank of India and another (supra), this Court held that in such a situation, the case under the new Scheme has to be considered. 5. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Dehria (supra), framed specific iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Baria (supra), do not lay down the correct law and are hereby overruled. (f) Any right flowing from a settlement between the employer and employees' union or association has to be in a different compartment. (g) It would be the obligation of the employer to deal with the application with immediacy and promptitude so that the grievance of a family in distress gets a fair treatment in accordance with law. 6. In the case of SBI v. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571, taking into consideration that the employee of the bank had died on 1.8.1999 and the widow of the employee applied for compassionate appointment on 5.2.2000. The competent authority of the Bank rejected the application for compassionate appointment on 7.1.2002 in view of the Scheme viz-a-viz the financial position of the family. Against the decision of the Bank, the employee filed a writ petition before the Punjab Haryana High Court who had directed to consider the case of the petitioner by applying the scheme formulated on 4.8.2005 wherein the application was made in the year, 2000. In this back ground the Apex Court has held that the claim of the compassionate appointment under a schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
