Comptroller And Auditor General Of India And Others v. Bhanu Partap And Another



  

   


 !"# !$%&%"'
((

  

 
 



       


  

   

 )))  * +,*( -  .- , +,*-( --./ .

 (((((((   
  





   
  



 


!" )))

 .- ,  0 (1234   #
  
 

 

 $ 

%&%'&%"(
 
)*

 

  
#)



$  



$ 
+

,
#)

,-
 

.

!%/%0 1/10&%"23


  

4 



  & #
  

 


!"5 
 6
7 
  $






.


 
9
 
 


+

,
 ,-
:


 

";%2&%"/
 
  

 
 
< 

7 


8 
< 
.
  
7 
 
< 
7 
) 
#   

)

 


:




< 
=
:



 $



 
7 

 


!"5


  



7 
) 
.




  

 
< 




)



7 
 

$

 




 







)
 *
#   
 


!"


) 


) 
:



7 
 
)



$

 

)  $



 
 6




7
7


 
7

 

, ,




 *



 


!"


  
 



) 

#)


:
 $
7


 *



) 


 7
 7
)*

8 



   

 



  
8 
 


#)


) 
)*

 
) 


$

 

  
; >

 


  


)


7
 

)



 




 
)
  '  


!",






)
  *


$

 









*




 $
7 


 $
 )




 $ 
1

 

 
)

)*

8 


 




+ -
7  

 
)
  
7?5 @"' The issue essentially is whether it is open to an employer, who is amenable to Part III of the Constitution to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment which is available to other legitimate children. Undoubtedly, while designing a policy of compassionate appointment, the State can prescribe the terms on which it can be granted. However, it is not open to the State, while making the scheme or rules, to lay down a condition which is inconsistent with Article 14 of the

Constitution. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to prevent destitution and penury in the family of a deceased employee. The effect of the circular is that irrespective of the destitution which a child born from a second marriage of a deceased employee may face, compassionate appointment is to be refused unless the second marriage was contracted with the permission of the administration. Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would not be open to the State, consistent with Article 14 to exclude such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment. Such a condition of exclusion is arbitrary and ultra vires."

"15. x x x x x x x x Having regard to the purpose and object of a scheme of compassionate appointment, once the law has treated such children as legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered for compassionate appointment. Children do not choose their parents. To deny compassionate appointment though the law treats a child of a void marriage as legitimate is deeply offensive to their dignity and is offensive to the constitutional guarantee against discrimination."
"16. x x x x x x x x The exclusion of one class of legitimate children from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground that the mother of the applicant was a plural wife of the deceased employee would fail to meet the test of a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It would be offensive to and defeat the whole object of ensuring the dignity of the family of a deceased employee who has died in harness. It brings about unconstitutional discrimination between one class of legitimate beneficiaries - legitimate children."

/

 




+ -

8 

 *  
 


 


!"

7
7 
)


 $
7

 $

)




  
)



 

*



 *
7




*
 

7
)
 

 
"'


 





 $


8 










 $
)* )  $
 

 $
 



 


8 
7  *
)
 





$



 


) 7 
)


*
) 


 *



A  


!",



*






)*

 




+ -
>

 


  

*
 *



 
 
2

$


)








$

 $ 


#)

  1  .- ,4    1-./ .

4   
((

  B  
 $0 

?

D 0
! B  
  ) C ?

D 0
!