N.C. Santhosh vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

Case,"C . A . Nos. 9280-

9281/2014 (N.C.

Santhosh)","C A @ SLP(C) No

34878/2013

(Sayeda F. Banao)",".C A @ SLP(C) No

24169/2015

(Sri Santosh)

Deceased Govt. servant,N.H. Chandra Gowda,"Shakila Jabeena Ara

Begum",M. Indranna Reddy

Dependant/Appointee,N.C. Santhosh,Sayeda Farheen Banao,Sri Santosh

Date of Birth,25.6.1982,12.5.1982,24.3.1983

Parents Death,25.1.1998,24.5.1994,11.11.1998

Minor’s Majority,25.6.2000,12.5.2000,24.3.2001

A p p l i c a t i o n for

compassionate

appointment.","First, mother applied on

28.2.1998. Then after

attaining majority

appellant applied on

29.06.2000.","First father applied but

was rejected on

12.6.1997. Then after

attaining majority

appellant applied on

25.09.2000.",1.7.2001

Appointment,25.8.2000,20.9.2001,14.12.2004

Removal,4.11.2003,"I. 15.6.2005 but reinstated

on 4.01.2006 on

Tribunal’s order.

II. Removed again on

28.12.2006 and relieved

on 2.1.2007 on

disciplinary ground",18.2.2007

Karnataka Administrative

Tribunal",2.7.2008,"2 1 . 4 . 2 0 0 9 â€

Disciplinary action not

warranted but termination

upheld for unmerited

appointment.",15.6.2011

Bangalore High Court,"22.5.2012 (W.P.) and

9.11.2012 (Review)",14.8.2013,2.12.2011

only mean that the appellants were undeserving beneficiaries of compassionate appointment as they attained majority well beyond one year of the,,,

death of their respective parents.,,,

In all these cases, when the government employee died, the appellants were minor and they had turned 18, well beyond one year of death of the",,,

parent. As can be seen from the details in the chart, the dependants attained majority after a gap of 2-6 years from the respective date of death of",,,

their parents and then they applied for appointment. By the time, the dependent children turned 18, the amended provisions became operational w.e.f.",,,

01.04.1999. As such their belated application for compassionate appointment should have been rejected at the threshold as being not in conformity,,,

with proviso to Rule 5. The appellants applied for compassionate appointment (after attainment of majority), well beyond the stipulated period of one",,,

year from the date of death of the parent, and therefore, those applications should not have been entertained being in contravention of Rules.",,,

The provision of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 was considered inC ommissioner of Public",,,

Instructions and Others vs K.R. Vishwanath (2005) 7 SCC 206. Speaking for the division bench, Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat noted that the effect of the",,,

amended second proviso is that, unless the application is pending at the time of commencement of the Amendment Rules, the same can have no",,,

bearing on the claim for compassionate appointment. Thus, belated application filed by the dependant on attaining majority beyond one year from the",,,

date of death of the government employee would not be a valid application, consistent with the provisions of the Rules.",,,

Insofar as the appellant’s claim to legitimacy of appointment on the basis of Rule 9(3) of the Rules, a reading of Rule 9(3) suggests that it is a",,,

transitory provision granting extension of time for applying for compassionate appointment. But the transitory provision excludes application filed in,,,

contravention of Rule 5, as amended in 1999. In other words, applications filed by minor dependants who had not attained majority within one year",,,

from the date of death of the government servants will be in contravention of Rule 5. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the cases of the",,,

appellants are not covered by the transitory provision of Rule 9(3) introduced by the notification dated 28.5.2002.,,,

It is well settled that for all government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as is mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of,,,

the Constitution. However appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. In,,,

Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 56.0 It was remarked accordingly that compassionate appointment is a,,,

concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirant.,,,

This Court in SBI vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 while reiterating that no aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment,",,,

declared that the norms that are in force, when the application is actually considered, will be applicable. The employer’s right to modify the",,,

scheme depending on its policies was recognized in this judgment. Similarly in MCB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 13 SCC 58 3this,,,

Court reiterated that compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme and no aspirant can claim that his,,,

case should be considered as per the scheme existing on the date of death of the Government employee.,,,

However in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412 in the context of major shift in policy, whereunder, instead of",,,

compassionate appointment (envisaged by the scheme dated 8.5.1993), ex gratia payment was proposed (under the circular dated 14.02.2005), the",,,

Court adopted a different approach. Noticing the extinguishment of, the right to claim appointment, this Court held the “dying in harness schemeâ€",,,

which was prevalent on the death of the employee, be the basis for consideration.",,,

A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court’s view in SBI vs. Raj Kumar (supra) and MCB Gramin,,,

Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity,,,

of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should,,,

apply. Accordingly, in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019) 5 SCC 60 0the Court referred the matter for consideration by a",,,

larger Bench so that the conflicting views could be reconciled.,,,

The above discussion suggest that the view taken in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) is to be reconciled with the contrary,,,

view of the coordinate bench, in the two earlier judgments. Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellants counsel on Canara",,,

Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court inU day Krishna Naik vs.,,,

State of Karnataka & Ors. MANU/KA/0203/1999 (Writ Petition No.37931 of 1998, )it can not be said that the appellants claim should be considered",,,

under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee.,,,

In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 the earlier decisions governing the,,,

principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the bench, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated that",,,

appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the,,,

Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The Dependent of a deceased government employee are made,,,

eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy.,,,

Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the",,,

norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A",,,

dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand",,,

consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of",,,

the government employee.,,,

In view of the foregoing opinion, we endorse the Tribunal’s view as affirmed by the High Court of Karnataka to the effect that the appellants",,,

were ineligible for compassionate appointment when their applications were considered and the unamended provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules will not,,,

apply to them. Since no infirmity is found in the impugned judgments, the appeals are found devoid of merit and the same are dismissed.",,,