Appointment On Contract Basis Under Compassionate Appointment Application Does Not Make It To Be One Under Dying In Harness Rules: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that an individual was appointed on a contract basis under the application for compassionate appointment would not make his appointment to be one under the Dying in Harness Rules.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) that challenged the decision of the High Court. The case originated from a Writ Petition filed by the respondent, in which a Single Judge had set aside the UPSRTC’s order terminating the respondent’s services and allowed the Writ Petition.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “The mere fact that the respondent was appointed on contract basis under the application for compassionate appointment would not make his appointment to be one under Dying in Harness Rules.”
Senior Advocate Garima Prashand appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Sudhir Kumar Saxena appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Respondent who is the son of a deceased UPSRTC conductor was appointed as a contract conductor on compassionate grounds. After being found guilty of misconduct UPSRTC terminated his services. He challenged the termination and claimed that he was a permanent employee and could not be dismissed without a disciplinary inquiry. The High Court decided the Writ Petition in his favour. UPSRTC has approached the Supreme Court with the current Appeal.
The Court observed, “There is no dispute to the legal proposition that any appointment made on compassionate basis is in the nature of a permanent appointment and is not liable to be treated as temporary or contractual.”
However, the Court in the present case considered the question of whether the appointment of the respondent is under the Dying in Harness Rules or is independent of it on a contractual basis.
The Court noted that instead of offering compassionate appointment to the respondent under the Dying in Harness Rules, the respondent was extended the benefit of the policy decision August 09, 2012 taken in the 188th meeting of the Board of Directors of the appellant (UPSRTC). The Court said that the policy envisages to offer preferential treatment in the matter of appointment on contractual basis to the dependents of the deceased employees.
The Court said that the Appellant was not appointed on a compassionate basis and there is no reference of any compassionate appointment in any document.
However, the Court noted that the order of termination of services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice.
The Court set aside the order of the High Court to the extent they hold the appointment to be on the compassionate basis under the Dying in Harness Rules and that of a permanent nature but quashing of the termination order is maintained.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Brijesh Kumar & Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 638)