2021 INSC 0858
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.
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)   (57 th
  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   Tewari 1
,   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
on   the   date   of
death   of   the
Government
servant Modified
Scheme   which
came into force
after death Decision of this
Court
State   Bank
of   India   vs.
Jaspal Kaur
(2007)   9   SCC
571
[a   two
member
Bench] The   Scheme   of   the
year   1996,   which
made   the   financial
condition   of   the
family   as   the   main
criterion,   was   in
force,   on   the   date   of
death   of   the
employee in  the year
1999.   The   1996   Scheme
was   subsequently
modified by policy
issued   in   2005,
which   laid   down
few   parameters
for   determining
penury.   One   of
the   parameters
was   to   see   if   the
income   of   the
family   had   been
reduced   to   less
than   60%   of   the
salary   drawn   by
the   employee   at
the   time   of   death.
Therefore,   the
wife   of   the
deceased Rejecting   the
claim   of   the   wife
of   the   deceased
employee,   this
Court   held   that
the   application   of
the   dependant
made   in   the   year
2000,   after   the
death   of   the
employee   in   the
year  1999, cannot
be   decided   on   the
basis  of  a  Scheme
which   came   into
force   in   the   year
2005.
8

employee   claimed
the   consideration
of   the   application
on   the   basis   of
parameters   laid
down in the policy
of the year 2005.
State   Bank
of   India   Vs.
Raj Kumar
(2010) 11 SCC
661
[a   two
member
Bench] The   employee   died
on   1.10.2004   and
the   applications   for
compassionate
appointment   were
made   on   6.06.2005
and 14.06.2005.   On
the   date   of   death
and   on   the   date   of
the   applications,   a
Scheme   known   as
compassionate
appointment Scheme
was in force. But   with   effect
from   04.08.2005
a  new  Scheme   for
payment   of   ex­
gratia   lump­sum
was introduced in
the   place   of   the
old   Scheme.   The
new   Scheme
contained   a
provision   to   the
effect   that   all
applications
pending   under
the   old   Scheme
will   be   dealt   with
only   in
accordance   with
the new Scheme. This   Court   held
that   the
application   could
be   considered
only   under   the
new Scheme, as it
contained   a
specific   provision
relating   to
pending
applications. 
MGB   Gramin
Bank   vs.
Chakrawarti
Singh
(2014) 13 SCC
583
[a   two
member
Bench] The   employee   died
on   19.04.2006   and
the   application   for
appointment   made
on   12.05.2006.   A
scheme   for
appointment   on
compassionate
grounds was in force
on that date. However,   a   new
Scheme   dated
12.06.2006   came
into   force   on
6.10.2006,
providing   only   for
ex gratia payment
instead   of
compassionate
appointment. This   Court   took
the   view   that   the
new Scheme alone
would   apply   as   it
contained   a
specific   provision
which   mandated
all   pending
applications   to   be
considered   under
the new Scheme.
9

Canara
Bank   vs.   M.
Mahesh
Kumar 
(2015)   7   SCC
412
[a   two
member
Bench] The   employee   died
on   10.10.1998   and
the   application   for
appointment   on
compassionate
grounds,   was   made
under the Scheme of
the year 1993. It was
rejected   on
30.06.1999.   The
1993   Scheme   was
known   as   “Dying   in
Harness Scheme.” The   1993   Scheme
was   substituted
by   a   Scheme   for
payment   of   ex
gratia   in   the   year
2005.   But by the
time   the   2005
Scheme   was
issued,   the
claimant   had
already
approached   the
High   Court   of
Kerala   by   way   of
writ   petition   and
succeeded   before
the learned Single
Judge   vide   a
Judgment   dated
30.05.2003.     The
Judgment   was
upheld   by   the
Division   Bench   in
the year 2006 and
the   matter   landed
up   before   this
Court   thereafter.
In   other   words,
the Scheme of the
year   2005   came
into force:   (i)   after
the   rejection   of
the application for
compassionate
appointment
under   the   old
scheme;   and   (ii) This   Court
dismissed   the
appeals   filed   by
the   Bank   on
account   of   two
important
distinguishing
features,   namely,
(i)   that   the
application   for
appointment   on
compassionate
grounds   was
rejected   in   the
year 1999 and the
rejection   order
was   set   aside   by
the   High   Court   in
the   year   2003
much   before   the
compassionate
appointment
Scheme   was
substituted   by   an
ex   gratia   Scheme
in   year   2005;   and
(ii)   that   in   the
year   2014,   the
original   scheme
for   appointment
on   compassionate
grounds   stood
revived,   when   the
civil   appeals   were
decided.
10

after   the   order   of
rejection   was   set
aside   by   the
Single   Judge   of
the High Court 
Indian   Bank
vs.   Promila
and Another
(2020)   2   SCC
729
[a   two
member
Bench] The   employee   died
on   15.01.2004   and
the   application   for
appointment   was
made   by   his   minor
son   on   24.01.2004.
On   these   dates,   a
circular   bearing
No.56/79   dated
4.04.1979   which
contained   a   Scheme
for   appointment   on
compassionate
grounds   was   in
force.     But   the
Scheme   provided   for
appointment,   only
for those who do not
opt   for   payment   of
gratuity   for   the   full
term   of   service   of
employee   who   died
in harness. A   new   Scheme
was   brought   into
force   on
24.07.2004   after
the   death   of   the
employee.   Under
this Scheme an ex
gratia
compensation
was   provided   for,
subject   to   certain
conditions.     After
the   coming   into
force   of   the   new
Scheme,   the
claimant   was
directed   by   the
bank   to   submit   a
fresh   application
under   the   new
Scheme.   The
claimant   did   not
apply   under   the
new   Scheme,   as
he   was   interested
only   in
compassionate
appointment   and
not   monetary
benefit.  In   the   light   of   the
decision   in
Canara Bank vs.
M.   Mahesh
Kumar ,   this
Court   held   that
the   case   of   the
claimant   cannot
be   examined   in
the   context   of   the
subsequent
Scheme   and   that
since   the   family
had   taken   full
gratuity under the
old   scheme,   they
were   not   entitled
to   seek
compassionate
appointment   even
under   the   old
Scheme. 
N.C.   Santosh
vs.   State   of Under   the   existing
Scheme   referable   to But   by   virtue   of
an   amendment   to After   taking   note
of   a   reference
11

Karnataka
and   Others
(2020)   7   SCC
617 
(a   three
Member
Bench) Rule   5   of   the
Karnataka   Civil
Services
(Appointment   on
Compassionate
Grounds)   Rules,
1999,   a   minor
dependant   of   a
deceased
Government
employee   may   apply
within one year from
the   date   of   attaining
majority. the   proviso   to
Rule   5,   a   minor
dependant   should
apply   within   one
year from the date
of   death   of   the
Government
servant   and   must
have   attained   the
age of 18 years on
the   date   of
making   the
application.
Applying   the
amended
provisions,   the
appointment   of
persons   already
made   on
compassionate
grounds,   were
cancelled   by   the
appointing
authority   which
led   to   the
challenge   before
this Court.  made   in   State
Bank   of   India
vs.   Sheo
Shankar   Tewari
to   a   larger   bench,
a   three   member
Bench   of   this
Court held in  N.C.
Santosh   that   the
norms   prevailing
on   the   date   of
consideration   of
the   application
should   be   the
basis   for
consideration   of
the   claim   for
compassionate
appointment.  The
Bench   further
held   that   the
dependant     of   a
government
employee,   in   the
absence   of   any
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   Shrivas 2
.     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