Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard civil appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had directed consideration of compassionate appointment claims based on a subsequent amended policy. The dispute centered on the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a work charge employee who died on 08.10.2015. At the time of death, the prevailing policy dated 29.09.2014 provided only a compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to dependents of work charge employees, not appointment on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, a circular dated 31.08.2016 amended the policy to extend eligibility for compassionate appointment to dependents of work charge employees. The respondent's initial representation was rejected on the ground that the amended policy applied prospectively from 22.12.2016. The High Court's Division Bench, relying on a Full Bench decision, allowed the respondent's appeal and directed consideration under the 2016 policy. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the claim should be adjudicated under the policy existing at the time of death or the subsequent amended policy. The State argued that settled law requires application of the policy prevalent on the date of demise. The respondent contended that his subsequent appointment should not be disturbed. The Supreme Court analyzed the issue by referencing its precedents, including Indian Bank v. Promila and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas, which firmly establish that compassionate appointment claims must be decided based solely on the scheme prevalent on the date of the employee's death, and subsequent schemes cannot be considered. The Court emphasized that this principle was directly applicable, as the Amit Shrivas case involved the same scheme. The Court rejected the respondent's plea to protect his appointment, stating that once the underlying judgment is set aside, the appointment cannot stand. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court's judgments, and held that the respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment under the subsequent 2016 policy. The Court also noted that the compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, if returned by the respondent, should be repaid to him.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility Criteria - Policy Date of Death Governs - The Supreme Court held that claims for compassionate appointment must be decided solely based on the policy scheme prevalent on the date of the employee's demise, and subsequent amended policies cannot be looked into or applied retrospectively. The Court quashed the High Court's direction to consider the claim under a later policy, reinstating the principle that the date-of-death policy is determinative. (Paras 4-4.1) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Work Charge Employees - Policy Application - The Court addressed the eligibility of dependents of work charge employees for compassionate appointment. It noted that under the policy prevalent at the time of death (29.09.2014), such dependents were not entitled to appointment but only to a compensatory amount, while a subsequent policy (31.08.2016) extended eligibility. The Court held the earlier policy applied, denying appointment. (Paras 2, 4, 5) C) Civil Procedure - Judicial Review - Consequence of Setting Aside Judgment - Appointment Protection - The Supreme Court rejected the submission that an appointment made pursuant to the High Court's impugned judgment should be protected. It held that once the judgment is quashed, necessary consequences follow, and the appointment cannot be sustained as it was based on an erroneous legal premise. (Para 4.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claim for compassionate appointment should be considered under the policy prevalent at the time of the employee's death or under a subsequent amended policy that expanded eligibility?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed and set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court, and held that the respondent is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground based on the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016. The Court directed that if the respondent returned the compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, it should be paid back to him. Civil Appeal No. 6904 of 2021 was also allowed on the same grounds.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment claims must be decided based on the policy prevalent at the time of the employee's death
- not subsequent amended policies
- The policy applicable on the date of demise is the sole criterion for eligibility
- Subsequent schemes cannot be applied retrospectively to benefit claimants
- Appointment made under an erroneous judgment cannot be protected once that judgment is set aside
