The case revolves around the respondent, whose father, Bal Krishna, was employed as a conductor and passed away in service on October 18, 2003. At that time, the respondent was a minor, and his mother had applied for compassionate appointment on his behalf. However, this initial request did not yield results. Upon reaching adulthood on July 10, 2008, the respondent again sought compassionate employment, but there was no response until October 19, 2012.

In 2012, UPSRTC offered the respondent a contract position as a conductor, contingent upon a security deposit. The appointment, however, was characterized as being on a contractual basis rather than under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

The respondent’s tenure as a contract conductor was marred by disciplinary issues, leading to the termination of his services on January 30, 2016. He challenged this termination, asserting that his appointment was made on compassionate grounds, thereby qualifying him as a permanent employee, which necessitated a formal disciplinary inquiry before termination.

The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring that he was indeed a permanent employee whose termination violated principles of natural justice. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench, reinforcing the stance that compassionate appointments are inherently permanent.

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, emphasized the distinction between compassionate appointments and contractual employment. The justices noted that the documentation surrounding the respondent’s appointment clearly indicated a contractual basis, devoid of any references to compassionate hiring.

The Court asserted that compassionate appointments typically confer permanent status, yet in this instance, the lack of documentation supporting such a claim indicated otherwise. Furthermore, the Court found that the termination, while based on misconduct, failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice, as it did not include proper inquiry or a chance for the respondent to defend himself.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's findings that classified the respondent’s position as permanent under the Dying in Harness Rules. However, it upheld the invalidation of the termination order due to procedural shortcomings. The judgment underscores the importance of clarity in employment terms and the adherence to due process, particularly in cases involving compassionate appointments. The ruling serves as a critical reminder for both employers and employees regarding the significance of contractual clarity and the necessity of fair procedures in employment termination.