Compensation and Compassionate Appointment from the Company cannot be claimed simultaneously.

Rohit Pradhan | 10th October 2019

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Danish Khan, Civil Appeal No. 7803 of 2019

Background

Deceased was the driver for The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (TRSRT) who died in an accident while driving the bus of the TRSRT. His son claimed for Rs. 1, 35, 50, 000 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tonk (Tribunal), but compensation of Rs. 22, 95, 775 was only granted.

He later on claimed for compassionated appointment before TRSRT, which was rejected on the ground of Regulation 4(3) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 (Regulation). Regulation 4(3) states that, if a worker has died while in TRSRT’s vehicle, the dependant of the deceased cannot claim for compassionate appointment after claiming compensation from TRSRT.

Therefore, Matter went to the Rajasthan High Court, wherein Court held Regulation 4(3) of the Regulation to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Reason given by the High Court

The classification was made by the TRSRT that, there are two kinds of dependant, one where deceased dies in TRSRT’s vehicle and other where deceased dies in other’s vehicles. Both cannot be treated differently. Hence it was held violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s ruling

TSRTC has classified dependant into two category, first one is where the deceased dies in the vehicle which is not of TRSRT. In this situation dependant can claim for compensation from the insurance company, as no claim has been made by TRSRT, TRSRT will consider the application of Compassionate Appointment. While in other situation, compensation will be claimed from TRSRT, due to which there will be a burden over TRSRT, hence it will balance it by not providing passionate compensation. Both the classifications are not identical. Both of which is not treated equally, therefore Regulation 4(3) cannot be said to be discriminatory and hence, is not violative of Article 14.