RSRTC not obliged to give job to dependent of deceased employee involving its vehicle, says SC

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) is not obliged to give "compassionate" job to a dependent of its employee who has died in a road mishap involving the corporation's vehicle, as he is already entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Supreme Court has ruled.

As per regulations, RSRTC is obliged to provide compassionate employment to a dependent of its employee who dies in a road accident involving a vehicle that does not belong to the state-owned corporation.

However, as per regulation 4(3) of the RSRTC Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010, the corporation is not obliged to grant "compassionate appointment", besides the compensation under the Act, to the dependent of its employee who has died while travelling in a vehicle owned by the corporation.

The Rajasthan High Court set aside the regulation by terming it as "discriminatory" and violative right to equality under the Constitution.

"The dependents of employees of the Corporation who died due to an accident while travelling in a vehicle of the Corporation cannot be treated differently from dependents of employees who died in an accident while travelling in a vehicle not belonging to the Corporation," the high court had said.

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, however, did not agree to the view of the high court and set it aside.

Allowing the appeal of RSRTC, the top court said the corporation has carved out "two classes of dependents of deceased employees" in respect of claims for compassionate appointment.

"The reason for disqualification of dependents of an employee who died in an accident involving the vehicle of the Corporation is to avoid extra burden on the Corporation.

"In such cases...the Corporation has to pay the compensation under the Act and also to provide compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee," it said.

In a case where the vehicle of the Appellant- Corporation is not involved in the accident, the compensation under the Act is not the liability of the Appellant-Corporation, the top court said.

"It cannot be said that the dependents of an employee who claim both compensation under the Act and compassionate appointment from the Appellant- Corporation are on the same footing...," the top court said.

The corporation had moved the top court after its provision was set aside and it was asked to consider granting compassionate appointment to one Danish Khan whose father, an employee of the RSRTC, had died in a road accident involving the RSRTC vehicle.

Setting aside the HC verdict, the apex court said, "The intention with which Regulation 4(3) is made is to obviate the liability of the Corporation in payment of compensation under the Act and to provide compassionate appointment to the same person.

"We find there is a rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved by the Regulation.