Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus ASHISH AWASTHI on 18 November 2021
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
ATHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
ASHISH AWASTHI
(Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2021)
BNOVEMBER 18, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground – Fatherof the respondent died on 08.10.2015 – That at the time of deaththe deceased employee was serving as a work charge and he wasCpaid salary from the contingency fund – That the respondent wasprovided a compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as per the policyprevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee –Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide circular dated31.08.2016, under which even in the case of death of the workDcharge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to theappointment on compassionate ground – Respondent filed a writpetition before the High Court – The Division Bench of the HighCourt directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondentfor appointment on compassionate ground relying upon and/orconsidering the subsequent policy/circular dated 31.08.2016 – OnEappeal, held: As per the settled preposition of law laid down by thisCourt for appointment on compassionate ground, the policyprevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only isrequired to be considered and not the subsequent policy – In thatview of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by theFDivision Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed andset aside – Thus, the respondent shall not be entitled for appointmenton compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016 – As per the policy/circular prevalent atthe time of the death of the deceased employee in case of death ofthe employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs wereGnot entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and wereentitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as compensatory amount.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The deceased employee died on 08.10.2015. AtHthe time of death, he was working as a work charge employee,444
who was paid the salary from the contingency fund. As per thepolicy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceasedemployee, i.e., policy/circular No.C-3- 12/2013/1-3 dated29.09.2014 in case of death of the employee working on workcharge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointmenton compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs ascompensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to beamended vide circular dated 31.08.2016, under which even inthe case of death of the work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionateground. Relying upon the subsequent circular/policy dated31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directedthe appellants to consider the case of the respondent forappointment on compassionate ground. As per the settledpreposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment oncompassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of deathof the deceased employee only is required to be considered andnot the subsequent policy. [Para 4][447-G-H; 448-A-C]
2. In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila andAnr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim forcompassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis ofrelevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employeeand subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view hasbeen taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradeshand Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required tobe noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas the very schemeapplicable in the present case was under consideration and itwas held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of thedeceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of thematter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the DivisionBench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.[Para 4.1][448-C-F]
Bank of Maharashtra v. Manoj Kumar Deharia 2010(4) MPHT 18 – referred to.
Bank of Maharashtra v. Manoj Kumar Deharia 2010(4) MPHT 18 – referred to.
Indian Bank and Ors. v. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2SCC 729 : [2020] 1 SCR 408; State of Madhya Pradeshand Ors. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 – referredto.
ABC
D
E
F
G
H
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
ACase Law Reference
[2020] 1 SCR 408(2020) 10 SCC 496
referred toPara 4.1referred toPara 4.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6903 ofB2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2018 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in W.A. No.1559/2018.
With
Civil Appeal No.6904 of 2021.C
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Dy. AG, Ms. Samridhi Jain, SunnyChaudhary, Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Manish Yadav, Advs. for theAppellants.
Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Vishal Thakre, Gopal Singh, SanjeevDMalhotra, Hira Singh Rawat, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
124
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
3
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentEand order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in WA No. 1559 of 2018by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the saidappeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed bythe learned Single Judge of the High Court and has directed that theappellants herein – original respondents to consider the claim of theFrespondent herein – original writ petitioner for a compassionateappointment, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the presentappeal.
2. That the respondent’s father was working on the post ofChowkidar in the office of Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineer,GDistrict Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh. That the father of the respondentdied on 08.10.2015. That at the time of death the deceased employeewas serving as a work charge and he was paid salary from thecontingency fund. That the respondent was provided a compensatoryamount of Rs. 2 lakhs as per the policy prevalent at the time of death ofthe deceased employee, i.e., policy dated 29.09.2014. That after theH
death of the deceased employee, the policy for appointment oncompassionate ground came to be amended vide circular dated 31.08.2016and it was provided that even in case of death of the employee workingon work charge, his one of the heirs/dependents shall be eligible for theappointment on compassionate ground.
2.1 The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court,which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a directionto the appellants to decide the representation preferred by the respondentin accordance with law. That thereafter the respondent filed an applicationfor compassionate appointment and the same came to be rejected videorder dated 15.03.2017 on the ground that the policy/circular dated31.08.2016 shall be applicable prospectively w.e.f. 22.12.2016 and asthe deceased employee died on 08.10.2015, i.e., prior to the amendedpolicy, the respondent shall not be entitled to any appointment oncompassionate ground. That thereafter the respondent filed a freshpetition before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 10903 of 2017.The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition observing thatconsidering the policy prevalent at the time of the death of the deceasedwork charge employee, his dependents/heirs shall not be entitled toappointment on compassionate ground and the subsequent policy/circulardated 31.08.2016 shall not be made applicable. The respondent preferredan appeal before the Division Bench being WA No.1559 of 2018 andrelying upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh HighCourt in the case of Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Manoj Kumar Dehariareported in 2010 (4) MPHT 18, the Division Bench has allowed theappeal and has directed the appellants to consider the case of therespondent for appointment on compassionate ground relying upon and/or considering the subsequent policy/circular dated 31.08.2016.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the State ofMadhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.
4. The deceased employee died on 08.10.2015. At the time ofdeath, he was working as a work charge employee, who was paid thesalary from the contingency fund. As per the policy/circular prevalent atthe time of the death of the deceased employee, i.e., policy/circular No.C- A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A3-12/2013/1-3 dated 29.09.2014 in case of death of the employee workingon work charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointmenton compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs ascompensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amendedvide circular dated 31.08.2016, under which even in the case of death ofthe work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to theBappointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequentcircular/policy dated 31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the High Courthas directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent forappointment on compassionate ground. As per the settled preposition oflaw laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground,Cthe policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee onlyis required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.
4.1 In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila andAnr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim forcompassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevantDscheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequentscheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Courtin the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas,(2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in the case of AmitShrivas (supra) the very scheme applicable in the present case wasunder consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on theEdate of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In thatview of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by theDivision Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and setaside.
4.2 The submission on behalf of the respondent that after theFimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the respondenthas been appointed and therefore his appointment may not be disturbed,deserves rejection. Once the judgment and order passed by the Divisionbench under which respondent is appointed is quashed and set aside,necessary consequences shall follow and the appointment of theGrespondent, which was pursuant to the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be protected.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order passed bythe Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench atHJabalpur in WA No.1559 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside by observing that the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment oncompassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy dated31.08.2016.
It is reported that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs which was paid to therespondent as compensatory amount pursuant to the policy/scheme of2014 has been given back by the respondent. If that be so, the samemay be paid to the respondent.
Civil Appeal No.6904 of 2021
For the reasons stated in the judgment and order in Civil AppealNo. 6903 of 2021, the impugned judgment and order passed by the DivisionBench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2003 of 2019 also deservesto be quashed and set aside as in the present case also, the DivisionBench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider thecase of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground applyingthe subsequent scheme/circular and though under the scheme/circularprevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee, who at therelevant time was serving on work charge establishment, also deservesto be quashed and set aside and consequently, the present appeal is alsoallowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 passed bythe High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in WA No. 2003 of 2019 ishereby quashed and set aside. However, in the facts and circumstancesof the case, there is no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals disposed of.
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H