A significant ruling has been handed down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of compassionate appointment vs. termination. This case involved a legal battle between the parties over the nature of employment and termination procedures. The judgment will impact future cases involving employment rights and dispute resolution. Stay tuned for a detailed analysis of the court’s decision and its implications for similar cases in the future.
Facts
- The respondent’s father, Bal Krishna, was a regular conductor with UPSRTC and passed away while in service.
- At the time of his father’s death, the respondent was a minor.
- The respondent’s mother applied for his compassionate appointment, but it was not successful.
- The termination order of the respondent’s services by the Assistant Regional Manager, Mathura, UPSRTC on 30.01.2016 was set aside by the learned Single Judge on 12.01.2018 in response to a writ petition filed by the respondent.
- The Division Bench upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge on 12.09.2018.
- The respondent acquired high school and intermediate educational qualifications.
- He attained the age of majority on 10.07.2008.
- His mother moved an application seeking compassionate appointment for him under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
- No response was received for the applications filed by the respondent’s mother.
- The respondent’s services were terminated on 30.01.2016 due to misconduct.
- The appellant informed the respondent of his appointment as a contract conductor on a preferential basis in connection with his application for compassionate appointment.
- The respondent submitted the security deposit and entered into an agreement with the appellant to function as a contract conductor.
- The respondent challenged the termination of his services, claiming he was appointed on a compassionate basis, and therefore, should have been considered a permanent employee.
- He argued that his services could not have been terminated without a disciplinary inquiry.
Also Read: Judgment on CAS Benefits for Research Assistants – Supreme Court Ruling
Arguments
- The respondent’s appointment was on a contractual basis, not under the Dying in Harness Rules.
- The High Court ruled that compassionate appointments are permanent, and employees cannot be terminated without a disciplinary inquiry.
- Appellant (UPSRTC) has appealed against the High Court’s decision.
- Arguments were presented by both senior counsels, Smt. Garima Prashad for the appellant and Shri Sudhir Kumar Saxena for the respondent.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement: Settlement Agreement between Parties in a Cheque Dishonour Case
Analysis
- The High Court did not commit any error of law in setting aside the termination order and holding the services of the respondent as permanent.
- The father of the respondent passed away while working as a regular conductor, and the mother applied for compassionate appointment for the minor respondent as per Dying in Harness Rules, but it was not offered at that time.
- The respondent accepted contractual employment instead of compassionate appointment and signed an agreement to that effect.
- There is no concrete evidence to prove the appointment was on a compassionate basis, making it a contractual appointment that entitles him to claim regularization.
- The termination order was stigmatic and against the Principles of Natural Justice, as the respondent was not provided with any specific material or hearing before the termination.
- The order of termination, even if on a contractual basis, was based on alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice, indicating the appointment was contractual and not permanent.
- The High Court erroneously interpreted the appointment to be under Dying in Harness Rules and as permanent, although the appointment was contractual and not based on compassionate grounds.
- No show cause notice was issued to the respondent before the termination, further emphasizing the lack of due process in the termination decision.
- Based on the policy decision and relevant documents, it is evident that the appointment was on a contractual basis due to preferential treatment being the son of the deceased employee, and not on compassionate grounds.
- The services were terminated solely on the grounds of misconduct without any proper inquiry or hearing, leading to the rightful setting aside of the termination order on different grounds other than being a permanent employee appointed on compassionate basis.
Also Read: The Vishwanath Case: A Landmark Judgement by the Supreme Court of India
Case Title: U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. BRIJESH KUMAR (2024 INSC 638)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009903-009903 – 2024
