Tag: compassionateappointment

-Report by Nandini Gupta

In the case of The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah ordered that appointment on the mere grounds of compassionate after several years is unsustainable.

FACTS

The father of the respondent died in harness while working in clerical cadre with the appellants. Following this incident, the mother of the respondent i.e., the wife of the deceased was given an appointment on the grounds of compassion. But she also died in service. On 18th August 2011, the elder daughter (elder sister of the respondent) submitted an application for an appointment on the grounds of compassion which got rejected as she was married and not dependent on the deceased parents. Later, after two years on 26th February 2013, government issued another notice instructing to provide employment to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased government servant on the grounds of compassion.

In the following next month, another daughter (respondent) of the deceased mother who is also married submitted an application asking to provide employment on the grounds of compassion. This application was also rejected dated 23rd April 2013. The respondent filed an application in Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and High Court of Judicature at Bombay where the judgement was in favor of the respondents ordering to consider the appointment on compassionate grounds.

The court while delivering the judgement considered the precedents where it was ordered that the appointment on compassionate grounds for all the vacancies or posts of the government equal opportunity should be provided to all the aspirants as per Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Employment under the State) of Constitution of India.

Moreover, the appointment on compassionate grounds is merely a concession instead of a right granted for the sake of economic stability to the family member or one of the dependent of the deceased. Reference was made to the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] where the court has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source or gateway for recruitment, instead it is a way to walk over the sudden financial crisis suffered by the deceased of the family.

COURT’S DECISION

The Supreme Court considering all the facts of the case and precedents, quashed the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and High Court and dismissed the writ petition. The court observed that the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal have given an erroneous decision by directing the appellants to appoint the respondents on the grounds of compassion when appointment after several years of death of the mother is unjustifiable.

-Report by Harshita

It was held by the hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union that the provision of employment to the heirs of employees on compassionate grounds was unsustainable and thus prohibited.

FACTS

Ahmednagar Municipal Council was converted to Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika in 2003, and an important demand on the part of employees was the assurance that their heirs would be employed by the Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika. As a major demand of its employees, it was agreed upon by the Municipal Council. Hence, the Industrial Court administered that the employees in Class-IV category(if they die before their retirement, if they become invalid, or if they retire), their heirs should be given employment in their stead. When some further demands were raised and the decision was supposed to be modified, the Industrial Court changed the condition. This led to the Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika being instructed to (1) provide employment to heirs of ‘CLASS-IV’ employees working in healthcare only, (2) provide employment to heirs of all the classes on compassionate grounds as per government regulations and directions. This meant that the heirs of employees won’t be rewarded with employment on compassionate grounds on retirement and only provided to heirs of deceased employees of the Class-IV category.

Later on, Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union went on to demand the employment of heirs of the retired employees according to the previous judgment. Under the guidance of the High court, the Industrial court changed the course of action and provided the legal heirs of the employees with work on grounds of retirement and superannuation.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika presented the current appeals.

APPELLANT’S SIDE

The Learned Counsel contended that both the Industrial Court and the High Court have based their judgment on the decision from the original situation when Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika was a Municipal Council, which was regarded as an error by the petitioner side. The judgment for the case of The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Others v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa was considered relevant in this situation.

Another argument was that such employment given to the heirs of retired employees is opposing Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Further, the provision of such employment should be based on other factors which are the financial situation of the employees’ family, the role of the deceased and such. Again, the remuneration of the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs instead of employment for heirs who have crossed the age of 45 should itself be unfeasible.

RESPONDENT’S SIDE

With the case of Subhadra v. Ministry of Coal and another as reliance, the respondent’s side supported their situation that neither the Industrial Court nor the High Court made any mistake in presenting the judgment. Introducing the concept of ‘varas hakka’, they said the employment is not based on compassionate grounds but because of varas hakka.

COURT’S DECISION

Regarding the present situation of the country as opposed to when the first judgment came out in 1979, it is unreasonable to provide employment to heirs of employees on compassionate grounds as observed by both the Industrial Court and the High Court. After the conversion of the institution, it is now under the jurisdiction of the State government and there is no provision for any such heirs’ rights. Compassionate employment is already considered as an exception and cannot be provided as it opposes Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Even if it is known as ‘varas hakka’, it is not provided by any act or employment scheme. It was observed

“the employees of the Mahanagar Palika/Municipal Corporation shall be governed by the scheme of the State Government at par with the government employees, which does not provide for appointment on compassionate grounds to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

The court also observed that if the compassionate employment is not scrutinized properly, it may be unfair to the outsiders who are more qualified, as only the heirs will be reappointed. Therefore the appeal was allowed.

-Report by Ayushi Dixit

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Munna Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr. quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings against the appellants and stated that it is an abuse of the process of law.

The facts of the case are that Brijendra Nath Mishra obtained B.Ed. degree from an affiliated college of Gorakhpur University, Madan Mohan Malviya College, Deoria. After the death of his father, he called for a compassionate appointment and based on his education record he was eligible and hence was selected by the Selection Committee
(appellants). Brijendra Nath Mishra was selected by the committee on the compassionate ground under the dying harness rules.

The complainant (respondent) lodged FIR under sections 419, 420, 467,471 IPC against the selection committee and Brijendra Nath Mishra, who according to the complainant, has presented a forged marksheet of B.Ed. for compassionate appointment and the committee members conspired for the appointment and they were aware of the fact that the documents are forged.

After the complaint was filed, an investigation began and a final report was filed by the police but the Magistrate further gave directions for investigation. When the third round of investigation was completed a final report was filed again. On the request of the complainant, the investigating officer was changed and then finally a chargesheet was filed incriminating the appellants (member of the selection committee) and other persons for offences under section 419, 420, 467,468, 471 and 120-B IPC, cognizance was taken by the learned magistrate by an order.

The order was challenged by the appellants by filing a petition for quashing the cognizance against them under section 482 CrPC. The other two members of the selection committee against whom cognizance was taken have
preferred for a special leave petition before the court but during the pendency of the proceedings, unfortunately, both died and the court by a separate order dismissed their proceeding. The case Concerning with forged documents presented by Brijendra Nath Mishra for seeking a compassionate appointment is facing trial and that would be dealt according to the procedure established by law.

As far as the matter related to assistance by the selection committee, as the complainant has alleged, no prima facie evidence has been found which incriminates the appellants and shows that the appellants helped in fabricating or creating the forged document. The present members of the Selection Committee who relied on the documents without verification believed them to be genuine and recommended for the compassionate appointment which does
not mean that they helped in the fabrication of documents or were aware of the forged document. Thus, the members of the committee are not in any manner involved in the case.

“The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons against them by an Order dated 4th August 2009 in the instant proceedings, which, in our view, would be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law. Thus, the appeals stand allowed and the criminal proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 128 of 2002 qua the appellants are quashed and set aside.”

The appeals are set aside but the proceeding by the learned Magistrate against Brijendra Nath Mishra will continue in accordance with law and the court also held that if there is any pending applications regarding the case it shall also be disposed of.