Case: THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT  OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY) &amp; ORS Vs. BHEEMESH ALIAS BHEEMAPPA

4. Admittedly, the respondents 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) (7th 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 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.

Court's reasoning:
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 vis-a-vis 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.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 Explanation-2 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 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.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 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.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 (2020) 10 SCC 496 . 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.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 8.02.2019.17. Keeping the above in mind, if we critically analyse the way in which 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.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 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 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 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.