Supreme Court Rebukes BSNL for ‘Frivolous’ Petition in Compassionate Appointment Case, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost
New Delhi, Aug 15: In a stern message to public sector undertakings against misusing judicial resources, the Supreme Court on Thursday castigated Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) for filing what it described as a “totally frivolous” petition against a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling in favour of a man seeking a compassionate appointment. The apex court not only dismissed the petition but also imposed ₹1 lakh in exemplary costs, ordering BSNL to pay the amount directly to the respondent within two weeks.
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti expressed shock that such a matter had reached the Supreme Court, warning that non-compliance with its order would invite “appropriate orders” in future hearings.
Case Origin: A Family Tragedy and a Long Legal Battle
The dispute traces back to the year 2000, when Pavan Thakur’s father, a peon in BSNL, passed away while in service. In 2009, his mother was appointed in BSNL on compassionate grounds. Tragically, she too passed away the same year, leaving the family without any breadwinner.
In 2010, Pavan applied for a compassionate appointment — a scheme designed to provide immediate relief to families of government or PSU employees who die in service — but the Circle High Power Committee rejected his claim.
After years of legal struggle, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2018 overturned BSNL’s decision and directed his appointment. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s poor living conditions merited consideration.
Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Decision
BSNL challenged the CAT order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but the court dismissed the plea in April 2025. In its judgment, the High Court observed that Pavan Thakur, who was living in a temporary jhuggi (makeshift shelter) and not in his own house, should have been allotted at least some points under the ‘residence’ criteria of BSNL’s compassionate appointment policy.
The High Court remarked that even one additional point under this head would have made him eligible for the appointment, making BSNL’s rejection unjustified.
Supreme Court’s Strong Words
Despite clear findings from both the CAT and the High Court, BSNL escalated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP) — a move that invited the apex court’s ire.
“We find that this is one of those cases which is totally frivolous in nature. In fact, we are shocked as to why such a petition has been filed before this Court,” the Bench remarked in its order.
The court then directed BSNL to:
- Pay ₹1 lakh directly to the respondent, Pavan Thakur, within two weeks.
- File proof of payment with the court registry.
- Recover the cost amount from the officer(s) who advised filing the petition.
Failure to comply, the court warned, would result in the registry placing the matter back before it for further orders.
Why the Judgment Matters: Protecting Judicial Time
Legal experts say the ruling is significant because it reinforces the principle that public sector undertakings should act responsibly when deciding to approach higher courts. Frivolous litigation not only burdens the judiciary but also delays justice for other genuine cases.
The Supreme Court’s order to recover costs from the responsible officers could act as a deterrent against misuse of litigation powers by bureaucrats or legal departments within government enterprises.
Compassionate Appointment: A Lifeline Policy
Compassionate appointment schemes are a crucial part of India’s welfare-oriented employment framework, particularly in the public sector. They aim to:
- Provide immediate financial relief to families facing sudden loss of income.
- Prevent destitution due to the death of a government employee.
However, cases like Pavan Thakur’s reveal how procedural rigidity and narrow interpretations of eligibility criteria can undermine the very purpose of such policies.
Reactions and Public Sentiment
While BSNL has not issued an official public statement on the ruling yet, the order has sparked discussions on social media, with many users praising the court’s decision to hold officials accountable for wasteful litigation.
Legal commentators note that this judgment aligns with a growing trend where courts are increasingly imposing monetary penalties on PSUs for filing meritless appeals.
Impact on Governance and Accountability
This ruling could influence how public enterprises handle legal disputes in future:
- Greater scrutiny before escalating cases to higher courts.
- Increased personal accountability for officers recommending litigation.
- A stronger emphasis on resolving employee grievances at earlier stages.
For employees and their families, it also sends a message that courts will step in when administrative decisions contradict the principles of fairness and compassion.
Final Thoughts – TheTrendingPeople.com’s View
The Supreme Court’s message is clear: Judicial time is a public resource, not a playground for bureaucratic stubbornness. In this case, BSNL not only prolonged the hardship of a family already facing tragedy but also wasted taxpayer-funded legal resources in defending an indefensible position.
By ordering recovery of costs from the officers responsible, the court has signalled that decision-makers must bear personal consequences for unnecessary litigation. This could be a much-needed shift towards a culture of responsibility and empathy within India’s public sector.