There cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment, it has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise: SC

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas

Civil Appeal No. 8564 of 2015 decided on 29.09.2020

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Krishna Murari, Anirudha Bose, JJ

Facts:

State of Madhya Pradesh filed an appeal against the High Court judgement which directed the State to grant compassionate appointment to the son of an employee who was working as a driver in the Tribal Welfare Department of the State Government.

State of Madhya Pradesh contended that the deceased employee was working as a work charged /contingency employee in the Tribal Welfare Department, therefore he was not entitled to the compassionate appointment as per the policy which was existing on the date of his demise. As per the existing rules, only regular government employees are entitled for compassionate appointment within the meaning pf Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965.

The contention of the claimant was that his deceased father who was initially appointed as a work-charged employee was categorised as a permanent employee on account of having worked for more than 15 years and consequently his service was regularised and he was paid salary at a regular pay scale. The claimant- respondent had filed an application seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment.

The court allowed the appeal.

Issue:

Whether the late father of the respondent who was employed as a work-charged/ contingency employee in the Tribal Welfare Department was entitled to the compassionate appointment as per the existing policy on the date of his demise?

Held:

The court while allowing the appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh, observed that the compassionate appointments have to be in terms of the applicable policy which was existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. 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.

The court also noted the distinction between a work-charged employee, a permanent employee and a regular employee. The bench observed in this regard that the permanent classification does not amount to regularisation. We cannot make a conclusion that upon having achieved the status of a permanent employee in service, the status acquired is that of a regular employee.

The court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and increased the compassionate grant amount payable to the claimant from Rs.1,00,000/- t