caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ashish Awasthi on 18 November, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6903 OF 2021
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Ashish Awasthi …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6904 OF 2021
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Baalendu Yadav …Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in WA No. 1559 of 2018 by
which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.11.18
and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the
16:51:27 IST
Reason:
learned Single Judge of the High Court and has directed that the
1
appellants herein – original respondents to consider the claim of the
respondent herein – original writ petitioner for a compassionate
appointment, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present
appeal.
2. That the respondent’s father was working on the post of Chowkidar
in the office of Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineer, District
Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh. That the father of the respondent died on
08.10.2015. That at the time of death the deceased employee was
serving as a work charge and he was paid salary from the contingency
fund. That the respondent was provided a compensatory amount of Rs.
2 lakhs as per the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased
employee, i.e., policy dated 29.09.2014. That after the death of the
deceased employee, the policy for appointment on compassionate
ground came to be amended vide circular dated 31.08.2016 and it was
provided that even in case of death of the employee working on work
charge, his one of the heirs/dependents shall be eligible for the
appointment 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 direction to
the appellants to decide the representation preferred by the respondent
in accordance with law. That thereafter the respondent filed an
2
application for compassionate appointment and the same came to be
rejected vide order dated 15.03.2017 on the ground that the
policy/circular dated 31.08.2016 shall be applicable prospectively w.e.f.
22.12.2016 and as the deceased employee died on 08.10.2015, i.e.,
prior to the amended policy, the respondent shall not be entitled to any
appointment on compassionate ground. That thereafter the respondent
filed a fresh petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No.10903
of 2017. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition
observing that considering the policy prevalent at the time of the death of
the deceased work charge employee, his dependents/heirs shall not be
entitled to appointment on compassionate ground and the subsequent
policy/circular dated 31.08.2016 shall not be made applicable. The
respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench being WA
No.1559 of 2018 and relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bank of Maharashtra Vs.
Manoj Kumar Deharia reported in 2010 (4) MPHT 18, the Division
Bench has allowed the appeal and has directed the appellants to
consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate
ground relying upon and/or considering the subsequent policy/circular
dated 31.08.2016.
3
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the State of
Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
4. The deceased employee died on 08.10.2015. At the time of death,
he was working as a work charge employee, who was paid the salary
from the contingency fund. As per the policy/circular prevalent at the
time of the death of the deceased employee, i.e., policy/circular No.C-3-
12/2013/1-3 dated 29.09.2014 in case of death of the employee working
on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the
appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs
as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be
amended vide circular dated 31.08.2016, 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 the
subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the
High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the
respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. As per the
settled preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on
compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the
4
deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the
subsequent policy.
4.1 In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr.,
(2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate
appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme
prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme
cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in 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 Amit Shrivas
(supra) 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 Division
Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.2 The submission on behalf of the respondent that after the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the respondent
has been appointed and therefore his appointment may not be
disturbed, deserves rejection. Once the judgment and order passed by
the Division bench under which respondent is appointed is quashed and
set aside, necessary consequences shall follow and the appointment of
the respondent, which was pursuant to the impugned judgment and
5
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be
protected.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur
in WA No.1559 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside by observing
that the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on
compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy
dated 31.08.2016.
It is reported that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs which was paid to the
respondent as compensatory amount pursuant to the policy/scheme of
2014 has been given back by the respondent. If that be so, the same
may be paid to the respondent.
Civil Appeal No.6904 of 2021
For the reasons stated in the judgment and order in Civil Appeal
No.6903 of 2021, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.2003 of 2019 also
deserves to be quashed and set aside as in the present case also, the
Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider
the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground
applying the subsequent scheme/circular and though under the
6
scheme/circular prevalent on the date of death of the deceased
employee, who at the relevant time was serving on work charge
establishment, also deserves to be quashed and set aside and
consequently, the present appeal is also allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 passed by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in WA No. 2003 of 2019 is
hereby quashed and set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
NOVEMBER 18, 2021. [SANJIV KHANNA]
7
Comments