Shinto v. Scariya
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. Chitambaresh
- Ashok Menon
- Judgment Date
- 2019-08-02
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ Appeal dismissed; no costs.
- Final Disposition
- The writ appeal is dismissed; no costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Shinto V. Scariya
Respondents
- Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Transport Bhavan, Fort P.O., Thiruvananthapuram (Rep. by the Chairman & Managing Director)
- The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, KSRTC
- The Executive Director (Administration), KSRTC
- The Chief Personal Manager, KSRTC
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • N. Unnikrishnan
Counsels for Respondents
- • M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, SC, KSRTC
- • T. P. Sajan, SC, KSRTC
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ appeal arises from a challenge to the KSRTC’s application of its compassionate appointment scheme for employees dying in harness. The petitioner, Shinto V. Scariya, son of a KSRTC driver who died in harness in 2000 at age 40, sought appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, arguing that his father’s death and his own qualifications (Diploma in Engineering) warranted appointment as Assistant Depot Engineer. He refused an offered post of conductor and later sought a vacancy as Assistant Depot Engineer; representations and a declaration (Ext.P7) were made by him acknowledging his willingness to join at a lower grade if needed and to forego other post claims, subject to the writ petition’s outcome. The district/allied authorities contended that the dying-in-harness scheme covers only Class III and IV posts, whereas an Assistant Depot Engineer is a Class II post, thus not within the scope of the scheme. The court pointed out that compassionate appointments are not a guaranteed right, but a concession under a specific scheme and governed by administrative orders (GOs). It emphasized that the petitioner’s declaration would not entitle him to a higher post outside the scheme, and that the existing GO updates restricts to lower classes. The bench affirmed the learned Single Judge, holding no right accrues outside the scheme, and dismissed the WA with no costs, reiterating that compassionate appointments are exceptions.”,
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession
- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointments are made transparently by the public service
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner pressed for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, highlighting his qualifications and the deceased employee’s service record. He argued that the regime should allow him to be considered for the post of Assistant Depot Engineer in any vacancy, or at least in line with similar cases (e.g., Prithviraj) under the scheme. He asserted his consent to join a lower post (Work Assistant) as per Ext.P7 but claimed the right to be evaluated for the higher post within the framework of the scheme and its amendments.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submitted that the dying-in-harness scheme applies strictly to Class III and IV posts; the Assistant Depot Engineer post is Class II and thus outside the scheme’s scope. They argued Ext.P8 (1999 GO) and the 2012 Regulation constrain compassionate appointments to lower grades, and that there is no intrinsic right to appointment outside the scheme. They relied on established authorities indicating compassionate appointments are concessions rather than rights.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Bank of India & another v. Rajkumar | (2010) 11 SCC 661 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, subject to the applicable scheme and rules. |
| Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das & Others | (2008) 15 SCC 560 | Positive | Cited to reinforce the view that such appointments are not guaranteed rights and must adhere to statutory/government schemes. |
| General Manager, State Bank of India and Others v. Anju Jain | (2008) 8 SCC 475 | Positive | Used as authority that compassionate employment is a concession rather than an absolute right. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Shinto v. Scariya and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.