REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 7752  of 2021
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.1564 of 2021)

THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT 
OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY) & ORS.      ... Appellant (s)

Versus

BHEEMESH ALIAS BHEEMAPPA       ... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the order passed by Karnataka State Administrative

Tribunal which was also confirmed by the High Court, directing them to

consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate

grounds, the State has come up with the above appeal.
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2021.12.16
16:27:16 IST
Reason:

1
3. We have heard Sh. V. N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing

for   the   appellants   and   Sh.   Jayanth   Muthraj,   learned   senior   counsel

appearing for the respondent.

4. Admittedly, the respondent’s sister who was employed as Assistant

Teacher in a Government School, died in harness on 8.12.2010, leaving

behind   her   surviving,   her   mother,   two   brothers   and   two   sisters.

Claiming   that   the   deceased  was  unmarried and  that  the  mother, two

brothers   and   two   sisters   were   entirely   dependent   on   her   income,   the

respondent sought appointment on compassionate grounds. The claim

was   rejected   by   the   competent   authority   by   an   Order   dated

17/21.11.2012,   on   the   ground   that   the   amendment   made   to   the

Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (7 th

amendment)   Rules,   2012   on   20.06.2012,   extending   the   benefit   of

compassionate appointment to the unmarried dependant brother of an

unmarried   female   employee,   will   not   be   applicable   to   the   case   of   the

respondent. 

5. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the respondent moved the

Karnataka   State   Administrative   Tribunal   by   way   of   an   application   in

2
Application No.9099 of 2014. The said application was allowed by the

Tribunal   by   an   Order   dated   10.11.2017,   on   the   ground   that   the

amendment   made   to   the   Rules   on   20.06.2012   would   apply

retrospectively   covering   the   case   of   the   respondent,   though   his   sister

died in harness on 8.12.2010.

6. Challenging   the   Order   of the  Karnataka  Administrative  Tribunal,

the   State   filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka,

Dharwad Bench. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by

an   Order   dated   20.11.2019,   on   the   basis   of   the   decision   of   another

Division   Bench   of   the   Court,   which   held   that   the   amendment   to   the

Rules was retrospective in nature. It is against the said Order that the

State has come up with above appeal.

7. As held by this Court repeatedly, every appointment to a post or

service must be made strictly by adhering to the mandate of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment on compassionate grounds, is

an   exception   to   the   regular  mode of  recruitment,  as it  is intended  to

provide succor to the family of the deceased Government servant, which

is thrown out of gear both financially and otherwise, due to the sudden

3
death of the Government servant in harness.

8. Admittedly,   the   appointment   on   compassionate   grounds   in   the

State of Karnataka is governed by a set of Rules known as Karnataka

Civil   Services   (Appointment   on   Compassionate   grounds)   Rules,   1996,

issued   in   exercise   of   the   powers   conferred   by   Section   3(1)   read   with

Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. The Rules as

they stood, on the date on which the sister of the respondent died in

harness, did not include an unmarried brother, within the definition of

the   expression   “dependant   of   a   deceased   Government   servant”   under

Rule   2(1)(a)   of   the   said   Rules  vis­a­vis  a   deceased   female   unmarried

Government servant. But it was only by way of an amendment proposed

under   a   draft   Notification   dated   20.06.2012   which   was   given   effect

under the final Notification bearing No. DPAR 55 SCA 2012, Bangalore

dated   11.07.2012   that   an   unmarried   brother   of   a   deceased   female

unmarried   Government   servant   was   included   within   the   definition.

There is no dispute about the fact that the sister of the respondent died

as an unmarried female Government servant, but on 8.12.2010, before

the amendment was made to the Rules.

4
9. To hold that the amendment will have retrospective application, the

High   Court   as   well   as   the   Tribunal   relied   upon   a   Judgment   of   the

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in State of Karnataka

vs.  Akkamahadevamma  and others, decided on 18.11.2010 in Writ

Petition   Nos.20914   of   2010   etc.   But   it   should   be   pointed   out   at   the

outset  that  the   Judgment  of the  High Court in  Akkamahadevamma

arose   out   of   an   amendment   to   the   Karnataka   Civil   Services   (General

Recruitment) (57th  Amendment) Rules, 2000. By the Amendment made

on 30.03.2010 to the said Rules, grandson, unmarried granddaughter,

daughter in law,  widowed daughter and widowed granddaughter were

included within the definition of the expression “members of the family”

under   Explanation­2   of   Rule   9.   But   the   amendment   so   made   on

30.03.2010 expanding the definition of the expression  “members of the

family”  was   triggered   by   an   Order   of   the   Tribunal   which   held   the

unamended   rule   to  be   unconstitutional. It is in that context that the

amendment made on 30.03.2010 to the Rules issued on 23.11.2000 was

held by the High Court to be retrospective in nature. It must also be

5
remembered   that   the   expanded   definition   was   with   respect   to   project

displaced persons. The right conferred upon a project displaced person

stands on a different footing from the entitlement of a person to seek

appointment   on   compassionate   grounds.   In   any   case   an   amendment

brought   forth,   on   the   basis   of   a   Judgment   of   a   Court   or   Tribunal,

holding the exclusion of certain categories of persons to be violative of

Articles   14   and   16   of   the   Constitution,   may   receive   an   interpretation

such as the one proposed by the High Court in  Akkamahadevamma.

But the same may not be applicable to amendments of the nature that

we are concerned with in this case.

10. Incidentally   we   must   point   out   that   the   High   Court   may   not   be

correct   in   holding   in  Akkamahadevamma  that   the   insertion   of

additional words in an existing provision would make those additions

part   of   the   original   provision   with   effect   from   the   date   on   which   the

original provision came into force. The rules of interpretation relating to

‘substitution’ are not to be applied to the case of ‘insertion of additional

words’.  

6
11. Be   that   as   it   may,   Sh.   Jayanth  Muthraj,  learned   senior   counsel

appearing   for   the   respondent   pleaded   that   there   are   two   lines   of

Judgments of this Court, one taking the view that the Rules/Scheme in

force on the date of death of the Government servant would govern the

field and the other holding that the Rules/scheme in force on the date of

consideration of the claim would govern the field. Unable to reconcile

this   conflict,   a   two   Member   Bench   of   this   Court,   by   its   Order   dated

08.02.2019 in  State Bank of India  vs.  Sheo Shankar Tewari1, has

referred   the   matter   for   consideration   by   a   larger   Bench.   Sh.   Jayanth

Muthraj,   learned   senior   counsel   therefore   made   a   request   that   the

present appeal may either be placed along with the reference or await a

decision on the above reference.

12. But we do not consider it necessary to do so. It is no doubt true

that   there   are,   as   contended   by   the   learned   senior   Counsel   for   the

respondent,   two   lines   of   decisions   rendered   by   Benches   of   equal

strength. But the apparent conflict between those two lines of decisions,

was on account of the difference between an amendment by which an

1 (2019) 5 SCC 600

7
existing benefit was withdrawn or diluted and an amendment by which

the  existing benefit was  enhanced. The interpretation adopted by this

Court varied depending upon the nature of the amendment. This can be

seen   by   presenting   the   decisions   referred   to   by   the   learned   senior

counsel for the respondent in a tabular column as follows:

Citation Scheme   in   force Modified Decision of this

on   the   date   of Scheme   which Court
death   of   the came into force
Government after death
servant
State   Bank The   Scheme   of   the The 1996 Scheme Rejecting   the
of   India  vs. year   1996,   which was   subsequently claim   of   the   wife
Jaspal Kaur made   the   financial modified by policy of   the   deceased
(2007)   9   SCCcondition   of   the issued   in   2005, employee,   this
571 family   as   the   main which   laid   down Court   held   that
[a   two criterion,   was   in few   parameters the   application   of
member force, on the date of for   determining the   dependant
Bench] death   of   the penury.   One   of made   in   the   year
employee in the year the   parameters 2000,   after   the
1999.   was   to   see   if   the death   of   the
income   of   the employee   in   the
family   had   been year 1999, cannot
reduced   to   less be decided on the
than   60%   of   the basis of a Scheme
salary   drawn   by which   came   into
the   employee   at force   in   the   year
the time of death. 2005.
Therefore,   the
wife   of   the
deceased

8
 employee   claimed
the   consideration
of   the   application
on   the   basis   of
parameters   laid
down in the policy
of the year 2005.
State   Bank The   employee   died But   with   effect This   Court   held
of   India   Vs.on   1.10.2004   and from   04.08.2005 that   the
Raj Kumar the   applications   for a new Scheme for application   could
(2010) 11 SCC compassionate payment   of   ex­ be   considered
661 appointment   were gratia   lump­sum only   under   the
[a   two made   on   6.06.2005 was introduced in new Scheme, as it
member and 14.06.2005.  On the   place   of   the contained   a
Bench] the   date   of   death old   Scheme.   The specific   provision
and   on   the   date   of new   Scheme relating   to
the   applications,   a contained   a pending
Scheme   known   as provision   to   the applications. 
compassionate effect   that   all
appointment Scheme applications
was in force. pending   under
the   old   Scheme
will   be   dealt   with
only   in
accordance   with
the new Scheme.
MGB   Gramin The   employee   died However,   a   new This   Court   took
Bank   vs. on   19.04.2006   and Scheme   dated the   view   that   the
Chakrawarti the   application   for 12.06.2006   came new Scheme alone
Singh appointment   made into   force   on would   apply   as   it
on   12.05.2006.   A 6.10.2006, contained   a
(2014) 13 SCC
scheme   for providing only for specific   provision
583
appointment   on ex gratia payment which   mandated
[a   two
compassionate instead   of all   pending
member
grounds was in force compassionate applications   to   be
Bench]
on that date. appointment. considered   under
the new Scheme.

9
Canara The   employee   died The 1993 Scheme This   Court
Bank   vs.   M. on   10.10.1998   and was   substituted dismissed   the
Mahesh the   application   for by   a   Scheme   for appeals   filed   by
Kumar  appointment   on payment   of   ex the   Bank   on
compassionate gratia  in  the  year account   of   two
(2015)   7   SCC
grounds,   was   made 2005.  But by the important
412
under the Scheme of time   the   2005 distinguishing
[a   two
the year 1993. It was Scheme   was features,   namely,
member
rejected   on issued,   the (i)  that   the
Bench]
30.06.1999.   The claimant   had application   for
1993   Scheme   was already appointment   on
known   as  “Dying   in approached   the compassionate
Harness Scheme.” High   Court   of grounds   was
Kerala   by   way   of rejected   in   the
writ   petition   and year 1999 and the
succeeded   before rejection   order
the learned Single was   set   aside   by
Judge   vide   a the High Court in
Judgment   dated the   year   2003
30.05.2003.     The much   before   the
Judgment   was compassionate
upheld   by   the appointment
Division Bench in Scheme   was
the year 2006 and substituted   by   an
the matter landed ex   gratia   Scheme
up   before   this in year 2005; and
Court   thereafter. (ii)  that   in   the
In   other   words, year   2014,   the
the Scheme of the original   scheme
year   2005   came for   appointment
into force: (i) after on   compassionate
the   rejection   of grounds   stood
the application for revived,   when   the
compassionate civil   appeals   were
appointment decided.
under   the   old
scheme;   and  (ii)

10
 after   the   order   of
rejection   was   set
aside   by   the
Single   Judge   of
the High Court 
Indian   Bank The   employee   died A   new   Scheme In the light of the
vs.   Promila on   15.01.2004   and was   brought   into decision   in
and Another the   application   for force   on Canara Bank vs.
(2020)   2   SCCappointment   was 24.07.2004   after M.   Mahesh
729 made   by   his   minor the   death   of   the Kumar,   this
[a   two son   on   24.01.2004. employee.   Under Court   held   that
member On   these   dates,   a this Scheme an ex the   case   of   the
Bench] circular   bearing gratia claimant   cannot
No.56/79   dated compensation be   examined   in
4.04.1979   which was   provided   for, the context of the
contained   a   Scheme subject   to   certain subsequent
for   appointment   on conditions.     After Scheme   and   that
compassionate the   coming   into since   the   family
grounds   was   in force   of   the   new had   taken   full
force.     But   the Scheme,   the gratuity under the
Scheme   provided   for claimant   was old   scheme,   they
appointment,   only directed   by   the were   not   entitled
for those who do not bank to submit a to   seek
opt   for   payment   of fresh   application compassionate
gratuity   for   the   full under   the   new appointment   even
term   of   service   of Scheme.   The under   the   old
employee   who   died claimant   did   not Scheme. 
in harness. apply   under   the
new   Scheme,   as
he   was   interested
only   in
compassionate
appointment   and
not   monetary
benefit. 
N.C.   Santosh Under   the   existing But   by   virtue   of After   taking   note
vs.   State   of Scheme   referable   to an amendment to of   a   reference

11
Karnataka Rule   5   of   the the   proviso   to made   in  State
and   Others Karnataka   Civil Rule   5,   a   minor Bank   of   India
Services
(2020)   7   SCC dependant should vs.  Sheo
617  (Appointment   on apply   within   one Shankar   Tewari
(a   three Compassionate year from the date to a larger bench,
Member Grounds)   Rules, of   death   of   the a   three   member
Bench) 1999,   a   minor Government Bench   of   this
dependant   of   a servant and must
Court held in N.C.
deceased have   attained   the
Santosh  that   the
Government age of 18 years on
employee   may   apply the   date   of norms   prevailing
within one year from making   the on   the   date   of
the date of attaining application. consideration   of
majority. Applying   the the   application
amended should   be   the
provisions,   the basis   for
appointment   of consideration   of
persons   already the   claim   for
made   on compassionate
compassionate appointment.  The
grounds,   were Bench   further
cancelled   by   the held   that   the
appointing dependant     of   a
authority   which government
led   to   the employee,   in   the
challenge   before absence   of   any
this Court.  vested   right
accruing   on   the
date   of   death   of
the   government
employee,   can
only   demand
consideration   of
his   application
and   hence   he   is
disentitled to seek
the   application   of
the   norms

12
 prevailing   on   the
date   of   death   of
the   government
servant. 

13. Apart from the aforesaid decisions, our attention was also drawn to

the decision of the three member Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh

vs.  Amit  Shrivas2.    But  that case arose out of a claim made by  the

dependant   of   a   deceased   Government   servant,   who   was   originally

appointed on a work charged establishment and who later claimed to

have become a permanent employee. The Court went into the distinction

between an employee with a permanent status and an employee with a

regular status. Despite the claim of the dependant that his father had

become a permanent employee, this Court held in that case that as per

the policy prevailing on the date of death, a work charged/contingency

fund employee was not entitled to compassionate appointment.   While

holding   so,   the   Bench   reiterated   the   opinion   in  Indian   Bank  vs.

Promila.  

14.  The aforesaid decision in Amit Shrivas (supra) was followed by a

2 (2020) 10 SCC 496

13
two member Bench of this Court in the yet to be reported decision in the

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi decided on 18.11.2021.

15. Let us now come to the reference pending before the larger Bench.

In  State   Bank   of   India  vs.   Sheo   Shankar   Tewari  (supra),   a   two

member Bench of this Court noted the apparent conflict between State

Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar and MGB Gramin Bank on the one hand

and  Canara   Bank  vs.  M.   Mahesh   Kumar  on   the   other   hand   and

referred the matter for the consideration of a larger Bench. The order of

reference to a larger Bench was actually dated 8.02.2019. 

16. It was only after the aforesaid reference to a larger Bench that this

Court decided at least four cases, respectively in  (i) Indian Bank  vs.

Promila;  (ii)   N.C.   Santhosh  vs.  State   of   Karnataka;   (iii)   State   of

Madhya   Pradesh   vs.   Amit   Shrivas;  and  (iv)   State   of   Madhya

Pradesh   vs.   Ashish   Awasthi.    Out   of   these   four   decisions,  N.C.

Santosh  (supra)  was   by   a   three   member   Bench,   which   actually   took

note of the reference pending before the larger Bench.     

17. Keeping the above in mind, if we critically analyse the way in which

14
this   Court   has   proceeded   to   interpret   the   applicability   of   a   new   or

modified Scheme that comes into force after the death of the employee,

we may notice an interesting feature. In cases where the benefit under

the existing Scheme was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit,

this   Court   directed   the   application   of   the   new   Scheme.   But   in   cases

where   the   benefits   under   an   existing   Scheme   were   enlarged   by   a

modified   Scheme   after   the   death   of   the   employee,   this   Court   applied

only the Scheme that was in force on the date of death of the employee.

This is fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment

was   always   considered   to   be   an   exception   to   the   normal   method   of

recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for

the individual and greater concern for the rule of law. 

18. If  compassionate   appointment is one of the conditions of service

and   is   made   automatic   upon   the   death   of   an   employee   in   harness

without any kind of scrutiny whatsoever, the same would be treated as a

vested right in law.    But it is not so. Appointment on compassionate

grounds   is   not   automatic,   but   subject   to   strict   scrutiny   of   various

parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic

15
dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation

of the other members of the family.  Therefore, no one can claim to have

a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. This is why

some of the decisions which we have tabulated above appear to have

interpreted   the   applicability   of   revised   Schemes   differently,   leading   to

conflict of opinion. Though there is a conflict as to whether the Scheme

in force on the date of death of the employee would apply or the Scheme

in force on the date of consideration of the application of appointment

on   compassionate   grounds   would  apply,  there   is   certainly   no   conflict

about the underlying concern reflected in the above decisions.  Wherever

the modified Schemes diluted the existing benefits, this Court applied

those   benefits,   but   wherever   the   modified   Scheme   granted   larger

benefits, the old Scheme was made applicable.  

19. The   important   aspect   about   the   conflict   of   opinion   is   that   it

revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and

(ii)  date   of   consideration   of   the   application   of   the   dependant.   Out   of

these   two  dates,   only   one,  namely, the date of death alone is a fixed

16
factor   that   does   not   change.   The   next   date   namely   the   date   of

consideration   of   the   claim,   is   something   that   depends   upon   many

variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of

majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the

competent   authority.  There   is   no   principle   of   statutory

interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a

rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us

take for instance a hypothetical case where 2 Government servants die

in harness on January 01, 2020. Let us assume that the dependants of

these   2   deceased   Government   servants   make   applications   for

appointment on 2 different dates say 29.05.2020 and 02.06.2020 and a

modified   Scheme   comes   into   force   on   June   01,   2020.   If   the   date   of

consideration   of   the   claim   is   taken   to   be   the   criteria   for   determining

whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different

results, one in respect of the person who made the application before

June 1, 2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after

June 01, 2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same date

17
and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one

before   the   modified   Scheme   comes   into   force   and   another   thereafter,

they will come in for differential treatment if the date of application and

the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor.

A   rule   of   interpretation   which   produces   different   results,

depending   upon   what   the   individuals   do   or   do   not   do,   is

inconceivable. This  is why, the managements of a few banks, in the

cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme

itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under

the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that

the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should

depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of

death and not an indeterminate and variable factor.

20. Coming to the case on hand, the employee died on 8.12.2010 and

the amendment to the Rules was proposed by way of a draft notification

on 20.06.2012. The final notification was issued on 11.07.2012. Merely

because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration

18
after the issue of the amendment, the respondent could not have sought

the benefit of the amendment. The Judgment of the Division Bench of

the   Karnataka   High   Court   in  Akkamahadevamma    on   which   the

Tribunal as well as the High Court placed reliance, was not applicable to

the   case   of   compassionate   appointments,   as   the   amendment   in

Akkamahadevamma  came   as   a   result   of   the   existing   rule   being

declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 

21. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order

of   the   High   Court   as   well   as   that   of   the   Tribunal   are   set   aside.   The

application   of   the   respondent   for   compassionate   appointment   shall

stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 

…..…………....................J.
      (Hemant Gupta)

.…..………......................J
(V. Ramasubramanian)

19
DECEMBER  16, 2021
NEW DELHI.

20