This blog delves into a recent legal case where the Court provided crucial analysis on the amendments to the compassionate appointment policy. The Court highlighted the significance of adhering to the policy in place at the time of the employee’s death and not considering subsequent amendments. Stay tuned to understand the intricacies of policy interpretation in the legal landscape.
Facts
- The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge directing the appellants to decide the representation in accordance with the law.
- The respondent’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the grounds that the policy/circular dated 31.08.2016 would be applicable prospectively from 12.2016, and since the deceased employee died on 08.10.2015, the respondent was not entitled to any appointment on compassionate grounds.
- The respondent then filed a fresh petition before the High Court (Writ Petition No.10903 of 2017) which led to the present appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the Division Bench’s decision to direct the consideration of the respondent’s case for compassionate appointment.
- Deceased employee was serving as a work charge and paid salary from contingency fund.
- Dependents/heirs not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, but entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs compensatory amount.
- Respondent provided Rs. 2 lakhs compensatory amount as per policy dated 29.09.2014.
- Policy for appointment on compassionate ground was amended after employee’s death on 31.08.2016.
- Amendment allowed one of employee’s heirs/dependents to be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.
- Respondent’s father, employed as a Chowkidar, died on 08.10.2015.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix
Analysis
- Policy/circular No.C-3-12/2013/1-3 dated 29.09.2014 applied at the time of deceased employee’s death
- Deceased employee was working on work charge and was paid from the contingency fund
- Amendment to policy/circular occurred on 31.08.2016
- Post amendment, heirs/dependents of work charge employees are entitled to compassionate appointment upon death
- Compassionate appointments should be decided based on the scheme prevalent at the time of the employee’s death
- Subsequent schemes should not be considered
- Decision in Indian Bank vs. Promila case emphasized the importance of considering only the relevant scheme at the time of the employee’s death
- Similar stance was taken in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas
- The scheme applicable on the date of death of the deceased employee is to be considered.
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench needs to be quashed and set aside.
- The argument that the respondent’s appointment may not be disturbed after the impugned judgment and order is rejected.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Concurrent Sentences in Drug Trafficking Cases
Decision
- The Division bench’s judgment appointing the respondent is quashed and set aside.
- The respondent is not entitled to compassionate appointment based on a subsequent circular/policy.
- The amount of Rs. 2 lakhs paid to the respondent has been returned and should be paid back to the respondent.
- The impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 in WA No 2003 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.
- Pending applications are disposed of.
- The judgment and order in Civil Appeal No.6903 of 2021 is referred to for quashing the Division Bench’s decision in Writ Appeal No.2003 of 2019.
- The direction to consider the respondent for compassionate appointment under a subsequent scheme/circular is also quashed.
Also Read: Legal Jurisdiction and Award Finality in Arbitration Dispute
Case Title: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. ASHISH AWASTHI (2021 INSC 759)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006903-006903 / 2021
