Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Danish Khan

2 | Page Regulations is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution.

4. The High Court held that the object of compassionate

appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the family

members of the bread-winner and for that reason

compassionate appointment should be provided to the

family in distress. According to Regulation 4(3) of the

Regulations, claim for both compassionate appointment

and compensation under the Act cannot be made against

the Corporation in case of death of an employee while

travelling in the vehicle of the Appellant-Corporation.

Regulation 4(3) was found to be discriminatory because

compassionate appointment can be provided to an

employee who dies in an accident while travelling in a

vehicle not belonging to the Corporation though he had

claimed compensation either from the owner of the vehicle

or the insurance company, under the Act.

5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note

of Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations which is as follows:

“On the occasion of death of any employee of the

Corporation while performing his duty or a vehicular death

by the vehicle belonging to the Corporation. If the legal

3 | Page representatives of the deceased employee seek

compensation from the Corporation by filing a claim petition

before the accident tribunal and the same is awarded or the

matter remains pending before the tribunal. In such a case

the Legal representatives of the deceased employee shall

have no right to seek appointment on compassionate

ground, if compensation is awarded or the matter remains

pending before the tribunal. If on the death of an employee

of the Corporation his Legal representative at the time of

compassionate appointment files an application for the

same in the prescribed format then the application for

appointment on compassionate ground has to be

supplemented with an Affidavit on a non-judicial stamp

paper of Rs.10/- by the legal representative that no claim

petition against the corporation has been filed before any

competent court and also that no such claim shall be filed in

the future and if in future even if any of the legal

representatives files a claim petition before MACT then the

employer/ Corporation shall have right to cancel my

appointment without any notice and that I won’t file any

case against such dismissal before any competent court.”

6. According to the said Regulation, the death of an

employee of the Corporation while travelling in a vehicle

belonging to the Appellant-Corporation cannot give rise to

4 | Page compensation under the Act as well as a claim for

compassionate appointment in the Appellant- Corporation.

The question that arises for our consideration is whether

the High Court was right in holding that Regulation 4(3) is

discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution. The reason given by the High Court to hold it

unconstitutional is that whereas the dependents of the

employee who died in an accident while on a vehicle

owned by the Appellant-Corporation are not entitled for

compassionate appointment after claiming compensation

under Act, the dependents of an employee who died in an

accident while travelling in a vehicle not owned by the

Appellant-Corporation are entitled to get compensation

under the Act against the owner of the vehicle or the

insurance company as the case may be, as well as a right

to claim compassionate appointment. The High Court was

of the opinion that the dependents of employees of the

Corporation who died due to an accident while travelling in

a vehicle of the Corporation cannot be treated differently

from dependents of employees who died in an accident

while travelling in a vehicle not belonging to the

Corporation.

5 | Page

7. The Corporation has carved out two classes of

dependents of the deceased employees in respect of

claims for compassionate appointment. The reason for the

disqualification of the dependents of an employee who

died in an accident involving the vehicle of the Corporation

is to avoid extra burden on the Appellant- Corporation. In

such cases, the Appellant- Corporation has to pay the

compensation under the Act and also to provide

compassionate appointment to the dependents of the

deceased employee. In a case where the vehicle of the

Appellant- Corporation is not involved in the accident, the

compensation under the Act is not the liability of the

Appellant- Corporation. It cannot be said that the

dependents of an employee who claim both compensation

under the Act and compassionate appointment from the

Appellant- Corporation are on the same footing as the

dependents of the deceased employee whose claim under

the Act against a private owner or an insurance company,

and compassionate appointment from Appellant-

Corporation.

8. The dependents of a deceased employee who claim

compensation from the Corporation under the Act and

6 | Page compassionate appointment from the Appellant-

Corporation from a separate class. It is well-settled that

though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid

reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation.

When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed

on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity

can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is

that the classification on which it is founded must be based

on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or

things grouped together from others left out of the group;

and the second test is that the differentia in question must

have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be

achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question.1

9. Having held that the classification of the two

categories of dependents of deceased employees is

reasonable, what remains to be examined is whether there

is a rationale nexus of the classification with the objective

sought to be achieved by the Regulations 4(3). The

intention with which Regulation 4(3) is made is to obviate

the liability of the Corporation in payment of compensation

under the Act and to provide compassionate appointment

to the same person. We find there is a rational nexus 1 State of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao, 1968 SCR (1) 407

7 | Page between the basis of classification and the object sought to

be achieved by the Regulation.

10. It is useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Rekhaben

and Others.2 The question that arose for consideration

of this Court related to the deduction of salary that was

earned by the claimant therein after being appointed on

compassionate grounds while calculating the

compensation payable to her under the Act for the death

of her husband. It was held that the salary earned by

compassionate appointment cannot be deducted from the

compensation which the claimant is entitled under the Act.

However, it was made clear that the salary which flowed

from the compassionate appointment that was provided by

the tortfeasor was liable to be deducted if the employer

was the owner of the offending vehicle and thus liable to

pay compensation under the Act. In other words, the

employer who has provided compassionate appointment

can claim deduction of the salary of the dependent while

calculating if he is liable to pay compensation under the

Act, being the owner of the offending vehicle.

2 (2017) 13 SCC 547

8 | Page

11. The two categories of dependents i.e. dependents of

employees who have died in an accident while travelling in

a vehicle belonging to the Corporation and dependents of

the employees who died while travelling in a vehicle not

belonging to the Corporation are not similarly situated in

respect of their claims against the Corporation. They

cannot be treated as equals. Therefore, Regulation 4(3)

cannot be said to be discriminatory. In the aforementioned

view, we are not in agreement with the judgment passed

by the High Court that Regulation 4(3) is violative of Article

14 of the Constitution.

12. As the Respondent has received the compensation

under the Act, he is not entitled for compassionate

appointment under the Regulations.

13. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court

is set aside the Appeal is allowed.

Civil Appeal No. 7803 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13139 of 2017)

The application preferred by the Respondent for

compassionate appointment was rejected by the Corporation

as being not maintainable under Regulation 4(3) of the

9 | Page Regulations, due to the fact that the Respondent has filed a

claim petition under the Act. The High Court allowed the Writ

Petition as being covered by a judgment in Civil Writ Petition

No.13862 of 2014. The Appeal filed by the Corporation is

allowed in terms of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7802 of

2019 (@ S.L.P.(C) No.4772 of 2017).

..…................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..…................................J. [HEMANT GUPTA] New Delhi, October 04, 2019

10 | P a g e