Tinku vs The State Of Haryana

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 8540 OF 2024

TINKU … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. This Appeal has been preferred by the son of Shri Jai

Prakash, a deceased constable in Haryana Police,

seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as

his father and another constable died while on duty

on 22.11.1997. The Appellant then was seven years

Signature Not Verified of age, and the policy which was in force was dated Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA

08.05.1995 which provided for ex-gratia appointment Date: 2024.11.13 16:45:51 IST Reason:

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 1 of 17

confined to Class III and IV posts. The widow of

Balwan Singh, the other police constable, who died

along with the father of the Appellant, was granted

compassionate appointment as a constable upon her

application.

2. The mother of the Appellant, being illiterate, could not

seek an appointment for herself and therefore applied

for compassionate appointment for her son, the

Appellant herein. A letter from the Director General of

Police, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “DGP”)

dated 15.04.1998 was received by the Superintendent

of Police on 20.04.1998 directing the name of the

Appellant, Tinku, son of deceased Constable

Jaiprakash, to be entered in the Minor’s Register No.

47. This indicated the intention of the authorities of

reserving one post for grant of employment to the

Appellant at a later stage being minor child of

deceased employee as per the applicable policy.

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 2 of 17

3. Since the Appellant was a minor, his claim was kept

pending. A further communication from the office of

the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, dated

30.12.2003, was received by the mother of the

Appellant that on attainment of the age of majority,

the Appellant should approach the Office of the

Welfare Inspector to get the case prepared. It is on

this basis that the Appellant approached the DGP by

way of representation dated 30.10.2008 putting forth

his claim for appointment under the ex-gratia scheme,

specifying therein that he had attained the age of

majority on 10.10.2008. His mother also submitted a

representation to the DGP, making reference to the

earlier communications as mentioned above for the

grant of appointment on compassionate grounds as

per the policy.

4. The claim of the Appellant was considered, and

communication was received from the DGP dated

28.04.2009 addressed to the Superintendent of Police,

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 3 of 17 Rohtak, with a copy thereof to the mother of the

Appellant intimating rejection of the claim for

appointment on compassionate grounds. The reason

assigned was that from the date of death of the

Appellant’s father till he having become major 11 years

had passed rendering the claim time barred when

taken from the date of death of the father of the

Appellant. For this reliance was placed on the

Government instructions dated 22.03.1999 where a

minor dependent of a deceased government employee

gets the benefit provided he/she attains age of

majority within a period of three years from the date

of death of the government employee. It was further

intimated that, as per the “Haryana Compassionate

Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased

Government Employees” Rules, 2006 (hereinafter

referred to as the “2006 Rules”), which were then in

force, whereunder the claim was considered, did not

contain provision for providing a job under the ex-

gratia scheme.

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 4 of 17

5. Faced with this situation, the Appellant had preferred

a writ petition before the High Court in the year 2009,

with the plea of promissory estoppel in the light of

communications received referred to above. The writ

was dismissed on 12.01.2021 holding therein that the

principle of estoppel would not be applicable to the

case in hand as it was only a communication which

was sent to the petitioner with regard to the name

having been entered in the minor’s register, while the

subsequent communication from the Superintendent

of Police was for approaching the authority on the

attainment of the age of majority by the ward. An

aspect with regard to the delay from the date of death

of the father of the Appellant till the date of he having

attained majority which is around 11 years also

weighed on the mind of the Court in the light of the

law as has been laid down by this Court in Umesh

Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana1.

1 1994 (4) SCC 138

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 5 of 17

6. An intra court appeal preferred by the Appellant resulted in the dismissal of the same on 22.03.2022, leading to the filing of the present Appeal.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, by making

reference to additional documents submitted that

there has been violation of the right of equality relating

to consideration for appointment under the ex-gratia

policy, as it is asserted that in similar factual matters

the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds

had been granted. It has been asserted that since the

Appellant is similarly placed, he should be granted the

same benefit. A reference in this regard has been made

to Annexures A-1 appended along with the Appeal.

8. A perusal of the above would indicate that the said

benefit of appointment on attaining the age of

majority, irrespective of the period having lapsed from

the date of death of the parent, had been granted prior

to 22.03.1999 when an outer limit of three years for

attainment of the age of majority from the date of

death of the deceased government employee was

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 6 of 17 introduced by the instructions. Further, in those

matters, the age of attainment of majority was also

prior to the coming into force of instructions dated

22.03.1999.

9. That apart, the claim as has been stated above, cannot

be accepted being not supported with any statutory

backing. This is required for making any claim

including a claim for compassionate appointment,

which is an exception to the general rule of

appointment requiring a proper advertisement and

selection process to be followed as per rules which is

an accepted norm. If some wrong benefit has been

conferred or some benefit which is contrary to the

scheme has been granted, it would not bestow a right

upon the others to claim it as a right of equality by

reference to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. There are catena of judgments of this Court that

clearly lay down the principles which govern such

claims. Some of which are Shanti Sports Club v.

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 7 of 17 Union of India2, Chandigarh Administration v.

Jagjit Singh3, R Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO4,

Basawaraj & Anr v. Special Land Acquisition

Officer5.

11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a

concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be

invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No

direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the

State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity

committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even

a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy

or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an

illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim

on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put

forth before a court nor would court be bound to

accept such plea. The court will not compel the

authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such

2 (2009) 15 SCC 705 3 (1995) 1 SCC 745 4 (2022) SCC Online SC 151 5 (2013) 14 SCC 81

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 8 of 17 claims are entertained and directions issued, that

would not only be against the tenets of the justice but

would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a

causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness.

The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook

the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have

legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that

too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without

legal basis or justification.

12. As regards the compassionate appointment being

sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment,

suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of

service of an employee who dies in harness, which

must be given to the dependent without any kind of

scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an

appointment which is given on proper and strict

scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with

an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary

financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 9 of 17 urgent situation where the sole bread earner has

expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless.

Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to

bail out a family of the deceased employee facing

extreme financial difficulty and but for the

employment, the family will not be able to meet the

crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant

fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy,

instructions, or rules for such a compassionate

appointment.

13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where

there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an

appointment on compassionate grounds, such an

appointment cannot be granted.

14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such

policies are framed for compassionate appointment is

with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and

facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out

to the general rule in favour of the family of the

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 10 of 17 deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into

consideration the services rendered by such employee

and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart

from the sudden change in status and affairs of the

family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e.

the loss of the sole bread earner.

15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give

immediate succour to the family. When seen in this

conspectus, three years as has been laid down from

the date of death of the employee for putting forth a

claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of

majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by

the Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in

any case unjustified or illogical, especially when

compassionate appointment is not a vested right.

16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record,

the Appellant attained majority 11 years after the

unfortunate death of his father. The claim, thus, has

rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 11 of 17 decisions of the High Court vide the impugned

judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus,

cannot be faulted with.

17. The claim of the Appellant for appointment on

compassionate grounds having been found to be not

sustainable, an aspect that has come to light which

requires consideration as has been put forth by the

learned Counsel for the Appellant, is with regard to the

grant of ex-gratia financial assistance. This is asserted

in the light of the fact that the claim of the Appellant

was pending consideration for compassionate

appointment for long with the respondents, and the

same had finally been decided on 28.04.2009 by

rejecting the same and that too primarily on the

ground that the said claim is time barred. It is further

stated that in the impugned Order dated 28.04.2009

that there is no provision for providing job under the

ex-gratia scheme in the 2006 Rules.

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 12 of 17

18. Going by the stand of the respondents, it is apparent

that the claim of the Appellant was considered under

2006 Rules which were enforced with effect from

01.08.2006. These Rules apart from other aspects

provide for the manner of dealing with the pending

cases. Rule 8, which relates to repeal and savings,

mentions the earlier prevalent rules, namely the

Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the

Dependents of the Deceased Government Employee

Rules, 2005. The first proviso thereto states that the

families would have the option to opt for the lump sum

ex-gratia grant provided in the Rules of 2003 or 2005,

as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly financial

assistance provided under the 2006 Rules.

19. Therefore, as per these 2006 Rules, the claim of

dependents of the deceased employee would enure for

consideration to ex-gratia compensation. The said

claim, therefore, as far as the widow of the deceased is

concerned, would survive and operate, especially in

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 13 of 17 light of the fact that her son, for whom she had sought

an appointment on compassionate grounds has been

found to be ineligible because of he being a minor. A

further perusal of the 2003 and 2005 Rules would

show that the pending cases were to be dealt with

under those rules.

20. The admitted factual position is that all through the

claim of employment of the Appellant was pending

with the respondents and consequently the right of

consideration of claim for ex-gratia compensation

would also subsist. Given an option, the mother of the

Appellant could have sought the benefit of such

compensation had she been informed in time about

the non-acceptance of her request for employment of

her minor son. She was kept waiting for a final

decision on the claim till its rejection in 2009.

21. The Government of Haryana had taken a conscious

decision on 16.03.2011 granting a mercy chance as

one-time measure to exercise option for ex-gratia

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 14 of 17 compensation. A perusal of the said decision would

show that it was a one-time relaxation for applying for

ex-gratia compensation in old cases pertaining to the

claims before 01.08.2006. This was done having

regard to the fact that in old cases where the family of

the deceased employee could not exercise the option

within time, due to lack of requisite knowledge or other

reasons because of which their dependents could not

avail the benefit under the ex-gratia scheme being

time-barred. Such dependents were, accordingly,

given one more chance to give an option.

22. Admittedly, this decision of the government was never

brought to the notice of the mother of the Appellant. It

could not be disputed that no intimation whatsoever

had been sent to the widow of the deceased

government employee regarding the exercise of such

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 15 of 17 an option. Had she been informed, she could have

applied for the grant of ex-gratia compensation. The

inaction on the part of the State in intimating her of

her entitlement to put forth the claim is the reason for

she having not opted for it.

23. It would thus be just and reasonable that one

opportunity is granted to the widow of the deceased

government employee, Jai Prakash and the mother of

the Appellant, to make a representation for exercising

her option for the grant of lump sum ex-gratia

compensation. We permit her to do so. On

submission of the representation, the same shall be

considered by the competent authority and a decision

taken thereon within a period of six weeks from the

date of receipt thereof. The lumpsum compensation,

if granted and released within the time stipulated

above, shall not carry any interest. However, if a

decision is not made and if found entitled, the amount

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 16 of 17 not disbursed within the stipulated time, interest at

the rate of 6 per cent per annum shall be payable from

the date of representation till the date of actual

payment.

24. The present Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

25. There shall be no order as to costs.

26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

…………………………………….J. (ABHAY S. OKA)

…………………………………….J. (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

……………………………………..J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 13, 2024.

Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 Page 17 of 17