Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court Rules on Compassionate Appointment

The case of Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others revolves around the principle of compassionate appointment, a legal provision that allows dependent family members of deceased government employees to secure employment based on their financial distress following the employee’s demise. This case was brought before the Supreme Court of India after the petitioner, Vinod Kumar Singh, was denied compassionate appointment by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court exercised its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to resolve the dispute. While the State of Uttar Pradesh had previously referenced a prior decision dismissing a similar petition, the Court ruled that the specific circumstances of this case warranted special consideration.

Background of the Case

Vinod Kumar Singh had applied for a compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was a government employee. His request was initially denied, leading him to pursue legal remedies. The petitioner contended that his family was in severe financial distress and that he was entitled to an appointment under the compassionate grounds policy.

The State of Uttar Pradesh opposed the plea, citing an earlier Supreme Court ruling dismissing a similar claim. The matter reached the Supreme Court, where the bench examined the unique aspects of the petitioner’s case.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar Singh, argued the following:

• His family faced extreme financial hardship after his father’s death, making him eligible for compassionate appointment.
• The rejection of his application was arbitrary and ignored the intent of the compassionate appointment policy.
• Precedents cited by the State did not apply to his unique situation.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh, through its counsel, made the following counterarguments:

• The Supreme Court had previously dismissed a similar plea in CC Nos. 6246-6247/2011, which should be binding.
• The policy for compassionate appointment is not absolute, and appointments must be made within the framework of legal precedents.
• The government had already reviewed the petitioner’s case and found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Court observed:

• “It is a case for compassionate appointment. Though the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh has made a formidable submission inviting our reference to a decision of this Court dismissing the special leave petition by order dated 02.05.2011 passed in CC Nos.6246-6247/2011, in the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the view that this is eminently a fit case for invocation of our plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and give a quietus to the dispute.”
• “Accordingly, the interim order dated 21.07.2017 passed by this Court for appointment on compassionate grounds, in the peculiar facts of this case, is made absolute and the appeal is disposed of.”
• “We make it clear that this judgment is passed in the very peculiar facts of this case and the same may not be treated as a precedent.”

Significance of the Ruling

This ruling underscores the discretionary power of the Supreme Court under Article 142, which allows it to pass judgments beyond statutory limitations to ensure complete justice. While the Court upheld the petitioner’s right to a compassionate appointment, it also explicitly stated that the ruling should not be considered a binding precedent.

The case serves as an important reminder that while legal policies must be followed, exceptional circumstances can justify judicial intervention to prevent undue hardship.

Petitioner Name: Vinod Kumar Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 29-10-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vinod Kumar Singh vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-10-2018.pdf