Miss Lucy
← All judgments

BSNL vs Vidya Prasad

Supreme Court28 September 2021Abhay S Oka · Ajay Rastogi

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a public employer has unreasonably delayed consideration of an application for compassionate appointment that was submitted within the prescribed period and under a scheme under which the applicant was eligible, and such delay is wholly attributable to the employer's inaction, the applicant is entitled to compensation even if employment cannot be granted due to the applicant's age at the time the matter reaches the appellate court. The introduction of a new and more restrictive scheme after an application has been validly submitted under a prior scheme, without expeditious consideration of pending applications under the prior scheme, constitutes arbitrary and unlawful treatment of the applicant's vested right to fair consideration under the scheme applicable at the time of application.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6019 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.16404 of 2018)

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION, BSNL & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

VIDYA PRASAD RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

and order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad granting compensation to the

respondent of Rs.10 lakhs in lieu of compassionate

appointment which was arbitrarily denied to him by the

Officers of the appellants.

The brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose

are that the father of the sole respondent while working as

a Telephone Mechanic died while in service on 07.02.2003.

The respondent submitted his application seeking

compassionate appointment on 15.10.2004 and formalities

were completed by him as demanded by the Department on Signature Not Verified

03.07.2005. The Scheme which was applicable at the time of Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2021.10.01 18:25:59 IST Reason:

death of his father and also the date on which he submitted

his application for compassionate appointment with all 2

formalities being complied with was of year 1998 in vogue

for seeking compassionate appointment.

It is not disputed by the appellants that in terms of

the Scheme of 1998, the respondent was eligible in seeking

compassionate appointment. The new Scheme (weightage point

system Scheme) in supersession of the 1998 Scheme was

introduced by the appellants on 27.06.2007 and immediately

thereafter the candidature of the respondent was considered

by the Committee constituted seeking compassionate

appointment and after consideration the application was

rejected pursuant to a communication dated 15.09.2007 and

the reason for rejection of his application is referred as

under:

Late Shri Ram Bux Ex.P/M TDM Etawah, expired on 07.02.2003 at the age of about 52 years and Eight month survived by his wife and two son including Shri Vidhya Prasad Widow Smt. Badala Devi is getting pension of Rs.3170/- per month and living in own house.

As per standing instructions dated 27.06.2007 BSNL HQ for offering compassionate ground appointment weightage point system has been provided in respect of items with positive points and negative points, (a) cases with 55 or more Net Points shall be prima facie treated as eligible for consideration by BSNL HQ High Power Committee for compassionate ground appointment and (b) cases with Net Points below 55 shall be treated as non indigent and rejected.

That came to be challenged by the respondent initially 3

by filing an application before the Tribunal and further

travelled to the Division Bench of the High Court and this

is the ground reality that because of long pendency in

Courts, attention could not be paid to decide the matters

expeditiously and only because the delay being caused his

legitimate right of fair consideration seeking

compassionate appointment has been denied to him.

The Division Bench of the High Court under the

impugned judgment observed that although he has a right of

fair consideration in seeking compassionate appointment but

by the time matter travelled to the Division Bench of High

Court, he crossed the age of 50 years and it was considered

not possible to permit him of seeking employment. Taking

totality of the matter into consideration in lieu of

employment granted him a lumpsum compensation of a sum of

Rs.10 lakhs.

We have heard counsel for the parties for quite some

time and we are of the view that delay was admittedly

attributable to the appellants in not putting heed to the

application submitted for seeking compassionate

appointment.

In the given case, either on the death of his father

or on the date on which he submitted his application for

compassionate appointment, the Scheme of 1998 was in vogue

for seeking compassionate appointment, and as observed he

was eligible under the Scheme 1998 but his application

remained pending until the new Scheme was introduced on 4

27.06.2007 and thereafter rejected by a letter dated

15.09.2007.

The facts are conspicuous and manifest in that the

delay in entertaining the application for fair

consideration in seeking employment submitted by the

respondent is indisputably attributable to the appellants

and for the afore-stated reason, he has been deprived of

seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise

entitled to under the Scheme of 1998. It is always said

that delay denies justice and the present respondent became

victim of the total inaction on the part of the appellants

and its officials in not putting heed to the application

which was submitted by the family of the deceased employee,

who died while in service. The indigent family who has

lost their bread winner in seeking compassionate

appointment to which one of the dependent was otherwise

entitled to under the law because of irresponsible attitude

and red tapism which is prevalent in the office of the

appellants.

At the same time, it cannot be ignored that by the

time the matter travelled to the Division Bench of the High

Court, the respondent crossed the age of 50 years and

certainly it was not possible to consider him for

employment at such a belated stage, but the respondent at

least could not have been left in lurch.

Taking into consideration the totality of the matter,

we consider it appropriate that the respondent be entitled 5

at least for a cost of Rs.5 lakhs to be imposed on the

appellants of causing delay in passing appropriate orders

on his application which was furnished by him for seeking

compassionate appointment.

Consequently, the judgment of the High Court impugned

dated 13.12.2017 is modified as stated above and the appeal

is accordingly disposed of. The payment of Rs.5 lakhs shall

be made over to the respondent within a period of four

weeks from today, failing which he will be entitled for

interest @ 9% per annum until actual payment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

............... J.

(AJAY RASTOGI)

............... J.

(ABHAY S OKA) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 28, 2021

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free