New Delhi, August 15, 2025 – The Supreme Court has strongly reprimanded Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for filing a “frivolous” petition challenging the compassionate appointment of a deceased employee’s legal heir. Imposing a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the public sector undertaking, the Court permitted recovery of the penalty amount from the officer(s) responsible for recommending the litigation.
The Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti expressed surprise that a government-owned entity would pursue litigation against an established principle of law governing compassionate appointments. The Court dismissed BSNL’s appeal, upholding the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after the respondent, Pavan Thakur, sought compassionate appointment following the death of both his parents, who were employees of BSNL and died in harness. Under BSNL’s policy, applications for such appointments are assessed on a point-based system to determine eligibility.
Initially, the Circle Assessment Committee awarded Thakur 74 points, making him eligible for appointment in a Group-D category post. However, the matter was later reviewed by the Circle High Power Committee (HPC), which awarded him only 54 points—just one point short of the prescribed benchmark of 55.
The crucial deduction came from the “accommodation” head. Thakur, who was residing in a temporary slum dwelling (jhuggi), was denied 10 points reserved for applicants residing in rented premises. This effectively disqualified him, leading to rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment.
Aggrieved, Thakur approached the CAT, which set aside the HPC’s decision and directed BSNL to grant him appointment. The Tribunal observed that it was unreasonable to treat living in a slum as ineligible for points, especially when the objective of the scheme was to provide immediate financial relief to families in distress.
BSNL challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which affirmed CAT’s reasoning. The High Court held that the HPC had acted arbitrarily and contrary to the purpose of compassionate appointment schemes.
Undeterred, BSNL carried the matter to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Apex Court was categorical in its disapproval of BSNL’s conduct. Noting that the law on compassionate appointments is well-settled, the Bench observed that it was “shocking” for a government-owned entity to litigate against the legal heir of an employee who had died in service.
“Government undertakings are expected to act as model employers. Filing appeals in such matters, particularly where the hardship of an employee’s family is evident, cannot be countenanced,” the Court observed.
The Bench upheld the findings of both the CAT and the High Court, emphasizing that the deduction of 10 points on the accommodation criterion was unjustified. The Court highlighted that the respondent’s residence in a temporary jhuggi was an indicator of his dire financial circumstances, warranting protection rather than penalisation.
Cost Imposed on BSNL
In a stern move, the Supreme Court imposed ₹1,00,000 as costs on BSNL for pursuing a frivolous plea. Significantly, the Court permitted BSNL to recover the cost from the officer who advised the filing of the petition, thereby making individual officials accountable for unnecessary litigation.
This direction reflects the judiciary’s growing concern over misuse of litigation by state-owned enterprises and the resultant burden on courts. By holding individual officers accountable, the Court has sought to discourage casual or ill-considered recommendations to pursue appeals.
Legal Context: Compassionate Appointment
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment based on merit and open competition. It is designed to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, leaving the dependents without a livelihood.
The Supreme Court has, in multiple precedents including Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar (2019), clarified that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a welfare measure to alleviate sudden hardship. While subject to policy guidelines, courts have consistently held that such schemes must be implemented in a fair and humane manner.
In this case, the arbitrary denial of points by the HPC ran contrary to the humanitarian object underlying compassionate appointments. Both the CAT and the High Court rightly corrected this injustice, and the Supreme Court’s ruling further strengthens the principle that technicalities should not defeat the purpose of such schemes.
Implications of the Judgment
- Accountability of Officers in Litigation – By allowing recovery of costs from the officer(s) responsible, the Court has signaled a shift towards fixing personal accountability in government litigation. This could reduce frivolous appeals filed by state bodies.
- Strengthening Employee Welfare Measures – The judgment reinforces the importance of compassionate appointments as a welfare measure and underscores that arbitrary interpretations of guidelines will not be tolerated.
- Judicial Intolerance Towards Frivolous Appeals – The decision reflects the judiciary’s increasing impatience with public sector undertakings burdening courts with unnecessary cases, especially when settled legal principles are at stake.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in BSNL v. Pavan Thakur marks a significant step towards ensuring fairness in compassionate appointment cases and curbing frivolous litigation by government entities. By holding BSNL accountable and permitting cost recovery from individual officers, the Court has sought to instill responsibility within the bureaucratic machinery.
This ruling not only secures justice for the respondent but also sets a precedent for other government undertakings to act with greater sensitivity and responsibility when dealing with matters concerning the welfare of employees’ families.
Also Read
Supreme Court Clarifies GST Investigations: Summons Not “Initiation of Proceedings”
Delhi High Court Stays Trial Court Order Against Hindustan Times, Neelesh Misra in Defamation Case
