The dependant of the deceased employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment if he has already received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act

Lisa Coutinho | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 16th March 2020

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Danish Khan Civil Appeal No. 7802 of 2019

Facts of the case:

The Respondent’s father, who was a helper in the Appellant corporation was travelling in the corporation’s bus. The bus collided with another bus resulting in his death. The Respondent made a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An amount of Rs. 1,35,50,000 was claimed, but only Rs. 22,95,775 was awarded to the Respondent. The Respondent approached the Chief Manager of the Appellant Corporation seeking compassionate appointment, but was rejected on the ground that the Respondent was not entitled in light of Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations. Dissatisfied, he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Regulation 4(3). The High Court allowed the petition on the ground that Regulation 4(3) is discriminatory and violative of Article 24 of the Constitution. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Issue raised:

The main issue that arises in this case is whether the High Court was right in holding that Regulation 4(3) is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court said that in a case where the vehicle of the Corporation is not involved in an accident, the compensation under the Act is not the liability of the Corporation. It cannot be said that the dependents of an employee who claim both compensation under the act and compassionate appointment are on the same footing.

According to the Apex Court, the two categories of dependents i.e. dependents of employees who have died in accident while travelling in a vehicle belonging of the corporation and dependents of the employees who died while travelling in a vehicle not belonging to the Corporation cannot be treated as equals as they are not similarly situated in respect of their claims against the Corporation. Therefore, the Court held that Regulation 4(3) cannot be said to be discriminatory.

The Apex Court held that since the Respondent has already received compensation under the Act, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment under Regulation 4(3).