Service Law:
Appointment – Compassionate appointment – Claim for – Rejected on the ground that as per existing policy there was no provision for compassionate appointment, where Government Servant was getting salary from the work-charge/contingency fund – However, as per the policy, wife of the deceased employee was sanctioned compassionate grant of Rs. One Lakh – Writ Petition – Allowed by High Court holding that once the employee became permanent under the Pension Rules, the policy was not applicable and directed the department to consider the case of the claimant for compassionate appointment – Writ Appeal before Division Bench taking the plea that the deceased Government employee since was not a regular employee, within meaning of r. 2(b) of Civil Service Conduct Rules, the claimant was not entitled to compassionate appointment – Dismissed by Division Bench of High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: An employee does not acquire status of regular employee upon having achieved the status of permanent employee – claimant not entitled to compassionate appointment – By a subsequent circular compassionate grant amount has been enhanced to Rs. Two Lakhs – In exercise of power u/Art. 142 of the Constitution, compassionate grant amount is enhanced from Rs. One Lakh to Rs. Two Lakhs – Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965 – r. 2(b) – Constitution of India – Art. 142. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succor to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. Since the demise of the late father of the respondent, 11 years have passed and really speaking, the aspect of providing succor to the family immediately does not survive. [Paras 14 and 15][53-C-D]
State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 545 : [2012] 7 SCR 1072; Indian Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 729 : [2020] 1 SCR 408 – relied on.
2.1 There is distinction between a work-charged employee, a permanent employee and a regular employee. The late father of the respondent was undoubtedly a work-charged employee and it is nobody’s case that he has not been paid out of workcharged/contingency fund. He attained the status of a permanent employee on account of having completed 15 years of service, which entitled him to certain benefits including pension and krammonati. This will, however, not ipso facto give him the status of a regular employee. [Para 16][53-F-G]
2.2. Under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, employees can be classified as permanent, permanent seasonal, probationers, badlis, apprentices, temporary and fixed-term employment employees. A work-charged contingency employee can also be classified under any of the aforementioned categories and under the said Standing Orders, the classification as permanent can be granted even on the completion of 6 months service in a clear vacancy. A ‘permanent’ classification does not amount to regularisation. [Paras 17 and 18][54-A-B-C]
Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC
436 : [2016] 9 SCR 141 – relied on.
2.3 An employee does not acquire the status of a regular employee upon having achieved the status of a permanent employee in service. Thus, the classification of the late father of the respondent as a permanent employee, and the distinction between a ‘permanent’ status and a ‘regular’ status appears to have been lost sight of in the impugned judgments. [Paras 20 and 21][55-E, F]
3.1 The family of the late employee has already been paid the entitlement as per applicable policy. The respondent is not entitled to any relief. However, there is a subsequent development arising from certain additional documents placed on record pertaining to the amendment to the policy of 18.8.2008 vide Circular dated 29.9.2014. In terms of this Circular, the compassionate grant amount was increased from Rs. 1,00,000/to Rs. 2,00,000/-. [Paras 24 and 25][56-F-H; 57-A]
3.2 Another Circular was issued on 31.8.2016, through which, a decision was taken that the dependents of deceased employees drawing a salary from the work-charged/contingency fund would be entitled to compassionate appointment, but it was clarified vide Circular dated 21.3.2017 that pending cases before the date of the 31.8.2016 Circular would be decided only in terms of the amended Policy dated 29.9.2014. That being the position, this last Circular also does not come to the aid of the respondent as it would amount to making the policy retrospectively applicable, while the Circular says to the contrary. [Para 25][57-A-B]
3.3 The Circular dated 21.3.2017 records that pending cases will be decided in accordance with the directions issued for compassionate appointment on 29.9.2014. The present case is really not a pending case before the authority, but a pending lis before this Court. Thus, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to do complete justice between the parties, the amount from Rs. 1,00,000/- is increased to Rs. 2,00,000/-. [Paras 27 and 28][57-E-F]
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Nirval Singh (2019) 6 SCC 774 : [2019] 7 SCR 905 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.