In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a person appointed on a contractual basis following an application for compassionate appointment does not automatically qualify for an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. The decision was made in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Brijesh Kumar & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. [Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.10546 of 2019]), which was heard by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from the termination of Brijesh Kumar, who was appointed as a contract conductor by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). Brijesh Kumar’s father, Bal Krishna, was a regular conductor with UPSRTC and passed away on October 18, 2003, while in service. At the time of his father’s death, Brijesh was a minor, and his mother applied for his compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Upon attaining majority and acquiring the necessary educational qualifications, Brijesh’s mother renewed her request for a compassionate appointment. However, UPSRTC did not appoint him under the Dying in Harness Rules but instead offered him a contractual position as a conductor on a preferential basis, contingent on a security deposit and a signed agreement.
Brijesh Kumar’s contract was terminated on January 30, 2016, for misconduct involving carrying passengers without tickets and transporting unbooked luggage. He challenged the termination, arguing that his appointment was on a compassionate basis, thus making him a permanent employee entitled to procedural safeguards before termination.
Legal Issues Involved
The key legal issues in the case were:
1. Nature of Appointment: Whether the respondent’s appointment was under the Dying in Harness Rules, which would make it permanent, or was purely contractual, based on a preferential policy decision.
2. Termination Procedure: Whether the termination of Brijesh Kumar’s services without a disciplinary inquiry was legally sustainable, considering his claim of being a permanent employee.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of UPSRTC, holding that Brijesh Kumar’s appointment was purely contractual and not under the Dying in Harness Rules. Justice Pankaj Mithal, writing the judgment, noted:
“The mere fact that the respondent was appointed on a contract basis pursuant to the application for compassionate appointment would not make his appointment to be one under Dying in Harness Rules.”
The Court emphasized that while compassionate appointments are permanent by nature, the documents and agreements in this case clearly indicated a contractual relationship. The policy decision of UPSRTC from August 9, 2012, only provided for preferential treatment in contractual appointments for dependents of deceased employees and did not offer any compassionate appointment under the statutory rules.
Further, the Court criticized the High Court’s misreading of the material, which led to an erroneous conclusion that Brijesh Kumar was appointed on compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court clarified:
“The High Court, erroneously on complete misreading of the material on record, held that the appointment of the respondent to be on compassionate basis and that he is liable to be treated as a permanent employee.”
Observations on Termination Process
However, the Supreme Court did maintain the High Court’s decision to quash the termination order. It held that even contractual employees are entitled to natural justice principles, which were not followed in this case. The termination was carried out without a proper inquiry or opportunity for Brijesh Kumar to respond to the allegations of misconduct. The Court stated:
“The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.”
Thus, while the Court allowed UPSRTC’s appeal in part, rejecting the claim that Brijesh Kumar was a permanent employee under the Dying in Harness Rules, it upheld the setting aside of the termination order due to procedural flaws.
The case was represented by Smt. Garima Prashad, Senior Counsel for UPSRTC, and Shri Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Senior Counsel for the respondent. The judgment provides a critical precedent for cases involving contractual versus permanent employment status in the context of compassionate appointments.
