Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground – Father of the respondent died on 08.10.2015 – That at the time of death the deceased employee was serving as a work charge and he was paid salary from the contingency fund – That the respondent was provided a compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as per the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee – Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide circular dated 31.08.2016, under which even in the case of death of the work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground – Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court – The Division Bench of the High Court directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground relying upon and/or considering the subsequent policy/circular dated 31.08.2016 – On appeal, held: As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy – In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Thus, the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016 – As per the policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee in case of death of the employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as compensatory amount. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The deceased employee died on 08.10.2015. At the time of death, he was working as a work charge employee, who was paid the salary from the contingency fund. As per the policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee, i.e., policy/circular No.C-3- 12/2013/1-3 dated 29.09.2014 in case of death of the employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide circular dated 31.08.2016, under which even in the case of death of the work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy. [Para 4][447-G-H; 448-A-C]
2. In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 4.1][448-C-F]
Bank of Maharashtra v. Manoj Kumar Deharia 2010
(4) MPHT 18 – referred to.
Indian Bank and Ors. v. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729 : [2020] 1 SCR 408; State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 – referred to.
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.