Supreme Court on Compassionate Appointment and Part-Time Employment

INTRODUCTION

On today’s show, we will talk about the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Uttam Singh, Civil Appeal No. 4575/2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed a matter relating to Compassionate Appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

 

Compassionate Appointment means appointment granted to a dependant family member of a Government Servant who dies while being in service, thereby leaving his family without any means of livelihood. To relieve the family of such Government Servant from financial constraints and emergent circumstances, Compassionate Appointment is granted to a dependant family member.

 

FACTS

In the present case, the father of the Respondent was working as a Tubewell Operator and had contested legal battle for his regularization. Further, the father of the Respondent was also drawing salary equivalent to the regular pay scale. He died while being in service.

 

The Respondent approached the High Court for grant of Compassionate Appointment as the father of the Respondent was also transferred to different departments from time to time and it was contended by the Respondent that transfers could not have happened if his father was not being considered as a regular employee. It was also contended that similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of Compassionate Appointment and the father of the Respondent has even been sent for performing election duties. In this light, the Respondent was granted the benefit of Compassionate Appointment by the High Court. According to the High Court, the selection of the father of the Respondent was proper and against the regular vacancy.

 

The Appellant appealed against the Judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court and contended that the father of the Respondent had not been regularized and therefore, the Respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Compassionate Appointment. In order to understand the matter in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Supreme Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS

Firstly, the Court noted that though the father of the Respondent was termed as a Part Time Employee, but he was always treated as a Regular Employee. Even the appointment of the father of the Respondent was done in accordance with the established norms and procedure.

 

Secondly, the Court observed that “had the father of the Respondent not been considered a regular appointee, there would be no occasion for the Department to volunteer his services to the State Election Commission to perform election duties, which could have been done only by a Government employee, as is specified under Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.”

 

Thirdly, according to the Court, “it is quite obvious that there is a discrimination against the Respondent possibly arising from the previous litigation between the appellants and the deceased father of the Respondent.”

 

HELD

Therefore, upon cumulative consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it cannot permit the Appellate Department to harass the Respondent without any rhyme and reason and upheld the Judgment of the High Court. Hence, the Appeal preferred by the Department was dismissed.

 

That was all about the case. So, what are my concluding remarks?

CONCLUSION 

Just because an employee has been termed as a part-timer but does all the work that is done by a regular employee and is treated as such by the employer in terms of pay, transfers, deputations etc., then in such cases, the Supreme Court rightly observed that such employee ought to be treated as a regular employee and must be extended all the benefits of regular employment.