Through its judgment in the two civil appeals- The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Anish Awasthi and The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Baalendu Yadav, delivered on November 18, 2021, a division bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna has reiterated the position of law settled by it earlier, with its direction to the appellants to consider the appointment of the respondents -(dependent/ heir of the deceased employee) in these appeals, on compassionate ground, only as per the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee and not the subsequent policy.
The death of the concerned employee occurred on October 8, 2015, At the time of death, he was working as a work charge employee, who was paid salary from the contingency fund. As per the policy/circular of September 29, 2014, prevalent at the time of his death, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs two lakh as a compensatory amount.
Subsequently, the policy came to be amended via the circular of August 31, 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 this subsequent policy/circular, the HC division bench directed the appellants to consider the case of these respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court has reminded that in its decision of the case – Indian Bank & Others v. Promila & Another (2020) 2 SCC 729, has observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on the date of the demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Amit Shrivas –(2020) 10 SCC 496. In this case, 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 HC division bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The submission on behalf of the respondent that after the impugned judgment and order passed by the HC, the respondent has been appointed and therefore, his appointment may not be disturbed, deserves rejection. Once the judgment and order passed by the HC division bench, under which respondent is appointed are quashed and set aside, necessary consequences shall follow and appointment of the respondent(s), which was pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the HC division bench cannot be protected.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Madhya Pradesh HC division bench at Jabalpur on December 12, 2018, through which the appeal was allowed, quashing and set aside the judgment delivered by a Single Judge Bench of the same HC, with direction, that the appellant's herein-original respondents to consider the claim of the respondents herein(the original writ petitioners) for appointment on compassionate ground, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred these appeals.
In the civil appeal 6903/2021, the respondent’s father was working on the post of Chowkidar in the office of Asst. Engineer, Public Health Engineer, at Tikamgarh district in Madhya Pradesh. The father of the respondent died on October 8, 2015. At the time of his death, the deceased employee was serving as a work charge and he was getting salary from the contingency fund. The respondent was paid Rs two lakh by way of compensatory amount as per the policy of September 29, 2014, prevalent at the time of the death of his father (the deceased employee).
After the death of the respondent’s father, the policy for appointment on compassionate ground was amended through circular of August 31, 2016, and it was provided that even in case of death of the employee working on work charge, one of the heirs/dependents shall be eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent filed a writ petition before the HC which came to be disposed of by the Single Judge with a direction to the appellants to decide the representation preferred by the respondent in accordance with law Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for compassionate appointment and the same came to be rejected by an order of March 15, 2017, on the ground that the policy/circular of August 31, 2016, shall be applied prospectively with effect from December 22, 2016, and as the deceased employee died on October 8, 2015, that is, prior to the amended policy, the respondent shall not be entitled to any appointment on compassionate ground.
Thereafter, the respondent filed a fresh petition before the HC numbered as WP 10903 0f 2017. The Single Judge dismissed the said petition, observing that considering the policy prevalent at the time of the death of the said work charge employee, his heirs/dependents shall
not be entitled to any appointment on compassionate ground and the subsequent policy/circular of August 31, 2016, shall not be made applicable to this case. The respondent filed a writ appeal 1559/2018 before the division bench and relying on the Full Bench decision in the case- Bank of Maharashtra v. Manoj Kumar Deharia – (2010) 4 MPHT 18, the division the bench allowed the said appeal with direction to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground relying upon and/or considering the policy /circular of August 31, 2016.
In view of these reasons, the Supreme Court has allowed the appeals of the State of Madhya Pradesh and quashed and set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the M.P. High Court division bench with the observation that the respondents shall not be entitled to an appointment on compassionate ground.
The SC has directed that if the respondents have given back the amount of Rs two lakh paid to each of them under the policy of 2014, that should be paid back to these respondents.
Case Details
Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Anish Awasthi
ReadOrder@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
