Case: RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COROPORATION Vs. DANISH KHAN

2. The Respondent?s father Mohd. Shahid who was working as a Helper in the Appellant-Corporation died in a motor accident. He was travelling in a bus of the Appellant-Corporation which collided with another bus. A claim was made by the Respondent before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, T onk (for short, ‘the Tribunal?) under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act?). An amount of Rs.1,35,50,000/- was claimed, but the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.22,95,775/-.  3. The Respondent made a representation to the Chief Manager of the Appellant-Corporation seeking compassionate appointment. The request for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the Respondent was not entitled in light of Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations. Dissatisfied with the rejection of the request for compassionate appointment, the Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Regulation 4(3). The High Court allowed the Writ Petition by a judgment dated 29.08.2016 on the ground that Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.  4. The High Court held that the object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the family members of the bread-winner and for that reason compassionate appointment should be provided to the family in distress. According to Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations, claim for both compassionate appointment and compensation under the Act cannot be made against the Corporation in case of death of an employee while travelling in the vehicle of the Appellant-Corporation. Regulation 4(3) was found to be discriminatory because compassionate appointment can be provided to an employee who dies in an accident while travelling in a vehicle not belonging to the Corporation though he had claimed compensation either from the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company, under theAppeal No. 7803 ofout of SLP (C) No.13139 of 2017)  The application preferred by the Respondent for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Corporation as being not maintainable under Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations, due to the fact that the Respondent has filed a claim petition under the Act. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition as being covered by a judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.13862 of 2014.

Reasoning:
7. The Corporation has carved out two classes of dependents of the deceased employees in respect of claims for compassionate appointment. The reason for the disqualification of the dependents of an employee who died in an accident involving the vehicle of the Corporation is to avoid extra burden on the Appellant- Corporation. In such cases, the Appellant- Corporation has to pay the compensation under the Act and also to provide compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee. In a case where the vehicle of the Appellant- Corporation is not involved in the accident, the compensation under the Act is not the liability of the Appellant- Corporation. It cannot be said that the dependents of an employee who claim both compensation under the Act and compassionate appointment from the Appellant- Corporation are on the same footing as the dependents of the deceased employee whose claim under the Act against a private owner or an insurance company, and compassionate appointment from Appellant- Corporation.Having held that the classification of the two categories of dependents of deceased employees isintention with which Regulation 4(3) is made is to obviate the liability of the Corporation in payment of compensation under the Act and to provide compassionate appointment to the same person. We find there is a rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved by the Regulation.The two categories of dependents i.e. dependents of employees who have died in an accident while travelling in a vehicle belonging to the Corporation and dependents of the employees who died while travelling in a vehicle not belonging to the Corporation are not similarly situated in respect of their claims against the Corporation. They cannot be treated as equals. Therefore, Regulation 4(3) cannot be said to be discriminatory. In the aforementioned view, we are not in agreement with the judgment passed by the High Court that Regulation 4(3) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.As the Respondent has received the compensation under the Act, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the Regulations.In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is set aside the Appeal isAppeal No. 7803 ofout of SLP (C) No.13139 of 2017)