Supreme Court

The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Ashish Awasthi and Ors.

MANU/SC/1090/2021

18.11.2021

Service

For appointment on Compassionate ground, policy prevalent at the time of employee's death applies and not the subsequent one

The State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed by the he High Court by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and has directed that the Appellants herein – original Respondents to consider the claim of the Respondent for a compassionate appointment.

The deceased employee died on 8th October, 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 31th August, 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.

In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., 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. 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.

Once the judgment and order passed by the Division bench under which Respondent is appointed is quashed and set aside, necessary consequences shall follow and the appointment of the Respondent, which was pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be protected.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set aside by observing that, the Respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy dated 31st August, 2016. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : Appointment Direction Legality

Share :