Applicability of an amendment rule for the compassionate appointment shall be based on the date of death rather than the date Of consideration of claim: Supreme Court of India.

 3. We have heard Sh. V. N. Raghupathy learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sh. Jayanth Muthraj learned senior counsel 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 was rejected by the competent authority by an Order dated 17 21.11.2012 on the ground that the amendment made to the amendment) Rules 2012 on 20.06.2012 extending the benefit of unmarried female employee will not be applicable to the case of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal by way of an application in 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 Challenging the Order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal the State filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka 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 an exception to the regular mode of recruitment as it is intended to Admittedly the appointment on compassionate grounds in the Civil Services Rules 1996 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) read with 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 under a draft Notification dated 20.06.2012 which was given effect dated 11.07.2012 that an unmarried brother of a deceased female unmarried Government servant was included within the definition as an unmarried female Government servant but on 8.12.2010 before High Court as well as the Tribunal relied upon a Judgment of the 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 (57th Amendment) Rules 2000. By the Amendment made on 30.03.2010 to the said Rules grandson unmarried granddaughter under Explanation­2 of Rule 9. But the amendment so made on family” was triggered by an Order of the Tribunal which held the remembered that the expanded definition was with respect to project appointment on compassionate grounds. In any case an amendment brought forth on the basis of a Judgment of a Court or Tribunal Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution may receive an interpretation Incidentally we must point out that the High Court may not be correct in holding in Akkamahadevamma that the insertion of part of the original provision with effect from the date on which the 11. Be that as it may Sh. Jayanth Muthraj learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent pleaded that there are two lines of 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 that there are as contended by the learned senior Counsel for the respondent two lines of decisions rendered by Benches of equal 5 SCC 600 seen by presenting the decisions referred to by the learned senior State Bank of India vs 2007) 9 SCC Scheme in force on the date of death of the The Scheme of the year 1996 which made the financial condition of family as the main criterion was in claim of the wife of the deceased Court held that the application of the dependant made in the year 2000 after the death of employee in the which came into force in the year Scheme which was subsequently 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 wife of State Bank of India Vs The employee died on 1.10.2004 and the applications for made on 6.06.2005 the date of death and on the date of the applications a Scheme known as MGB Gramin The employee died on 19.04.2006 and the application for appointment made on 12.05.2006. A employee claimed the consideration of the application on the basis of But with effect from 04.08.2005 payment of ex­ gratia lump­sum the place of the old Scheme. The provision to the effect that all pending under the old Scheme will be dealt with accordance with However a new 12.06.2006 came force on This Court held application could only under the specific provision This Court took the view that the would apply as it specific provision which mandated applications to be considered under Bank vs. M 2015) 7 SCC The employee died on 10.10.1998 and the application for grounds was made 1993 Scheme was known as “Dying in was substituted by a Scheme for payment of ex gratia in the year time the 2005 approached the High Court of Kerala by way of writ petition and succeeded before Judge vide a Judgment dated 30.05.2003. The upheld by the up before this Court thereafter In other words year 2005 came the rejection of under the old scheme and 2 SCC The employee died on 15.01.2004 and the application for made by his minor son on 24.01.2004 On these dates a 4.04.1979 which contained a Scheme for appointment on grounds was But the Scheme provided for opt for payment of gratuity for the full term of service of employee who died Court held that the case of the claimant cannot be examined in Scheme and that since the family had taken full old scheme they were not entitled appointment even under the old after the order of rejection was set aside by Single Judge of A new Scheme was brought into 24.07.2004 after the death of the employee. Under was provided for subject to certain conditions. After the coming into force of the new directed by the fresh application under the new claimant did not apply under the new Scheme as he was interested appointment and But by virtue of N.C. Santosh vs. State of Under the existing Scheme referable to After taking note of a reference and Others 2020) 7 SCC Rule 5 of employee may apply Rules a minor the proviso to Rule 5 a minor apply within one of death of the have attained the the date of persons already cancelled by the authority which challenge before made in State Bank of India Shankar Tewari a three member Bench of Santosh that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the consideration of the claim held that the dependant of a employee in the absence of any accruing on the date of death of the government consideration of his application and hence he is the application of prevailing on the date of death of the government 13. Apart from the aforesaid decisions our attention was also drawn to vs. Amit Shrivas2. But that case arose out of a claim made by the dependant of a deceased Government servant who was originally holding so the Bench reiterated the opinion in Indian Bank vs 10 SCC 496 In State Bank of India vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari a two and Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar on the other hand and Court decided at least four cases respectively in Indian Bank vs Promila N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi. Out of these four decisions N.C Santosh was by a three member Bench which actually took 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 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 was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of and is made automatic upon the death of an employee in harness grounds is not automatic but subject to strict scrutiny of various interpreted the applicability of revised Schemes differently leading to on compassionate grounds would apply there is certainly no conflict those benefits but wherever the modified Scheme granted larger 19. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates namely 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 competent authority There is no principle of statutory these 2 deceased Government servants make applications for 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 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 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 20. Coming to the case on hand the employee died on 8.12.2010 and after the issue of the amendment the respondent could not have sought the Karnataka High Court in Akkamahadevamma on which the the case of compassionate appointments as the amendment in Akkamahadevamma came as a result of the existing rule being of the High Court as well as that of the Tribunal are set aside. The application of the respondent for compassionate appointment shall DECEMBER 16 2021

Summary: The applicability of a modified scheme with respect to an appointment on the compassionate ground would be based on fixed criteria, Like date of death rather than intermediate factors Like date of consideration of the claim. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court before Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta &amp; Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian in the matter of THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY) &amp; ORS. Vs BHEEMESH ALIAS BHEEMAPPA [Civil Appeal No. 7752  of 2021] 
The facts arising to the case were that 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 an appointment on compassionate grounds. The claim was rejected by the competent authority by an   Order dated 17/21.11.2012. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the respondent moved to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which was allowed. Aggrieved, 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. Aggrieved, the state preferred the present appeal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that  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. 

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “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. A   rule   of   interpretation   which   produces   different   results, depending   upon   what   the   individuals   do   or   do   not   do,   is inconceivable.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts arising to the case were that 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 an appointment on compassionate grounds. The claim was rejected by the competent authority by an   Order dated 17/21.11.2012. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the respondent moved to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which was allowed. Aggrieved, 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. Aggrieved, the state preferred the present appeal. 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that  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. 

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “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. A   rule   of   interpretation   which   produces   different   results, depending   upon   what   the   individuals   do   or   do   not   do,   is inconceivable.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that  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.  
Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “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. A   rule   of   interpretation   which   produces   different   results, depending   upon   what   the   individuals   do   or   do   not   do,   is inconceivable.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “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. A   rule   of   interpretation   which   produces   different   results, depending   upon   what   the   individuals   do   or   do   not   do,   is inconceivable.” 
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal in view of the above.