Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment for work-charged employees’ dependents: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas (29 September 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 743

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can a ‘permanent’ work-charged employee be considered a ‘regular’ employee for compassionate appointment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the denial of compassionate appointment to the son of a deceased work-charged employee. The court examined the distinction between ‘permanent’ and ‘regular’ employees in the context of compassionate appointment policies. The bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose, and Krishna Murari, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

The respondent, Amit Shrivas, sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, Shri Ranglal Shrivas, who was employed as a driver in the Tribal Welfare Department, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. Shri Ranglal Shrivas worked from 6 June 1984 until his death on 11 December 2009. Initially a work-charged employee, he was made permanent on 12 March 1987 and received a regular pay scale, along with benefits like pay revisions and promotions.

Upon his demise, Shri Ranglal Shrivas left behind his wife, the respondent, and three daughters. The family faced significant economic hardship as he was the sole breadwinner. A Pension Payment Order was issued to the family based on his last pay scale and grade pay. The respondent then applied for compassionate appointment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected on 19 August 2010, based on a policy dated 18 August 2008, which excluded work-charged employees from such appointments. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, citing the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, specifically Rule 2(c), which defines a permanent employee as one who has completed 15 years of service.

The High Court allowed the writ petition on 19 July 2013, stating that Clause 12.1 of the policy did not apply to permanent employees. The appellants filed a writ appeal, arguing that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right and that the respondent’s father was not a regular government employee. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on 2 January 2014, holding that the deceased was a permanent employee under the Pension Rules.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, specifically:

• Rule 2(b): Defines a “Work-Charged employee” as “a person employed upon the actual execution, as distinct from general supervision of a specified work or upon subordinate supervision of the departmental labour, store, running and repairs of electrical equipment and machinery in connection with such work, excluding the daily paid labour and muster-roll employee employed on the work.”
• Rule 2(c): Defines a “Permanent employee” as “a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974.”

The court also considered the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965, specifically:

• Rule 2(b): Defines a “Government servant” as “any person appointed to any civil service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh.”

The compassionate appointment policy dated 18 August 2008, Clause 12.1, which stated that work-charged employees are not eligible for compassionate appointment, was also a key consideration. The policy stated that such employees would receive a compassionate grant of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right but a prerogative of the State, granted as per the policy in force at the time of the employee’s death.
• They emphasized that Clause 12.1 of the 18 August 2008 policy specifically excluded work-charged employees from compassionate appointment, providing only a monetary grant of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
• The appellants distinguished between a regular employee and a permanent employee, asserting that the respondent’s father, despite being a permanent employee under the Pension Rules, was not a regular government employee.
• They contended that the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the deceased’s wife was in accordance with the policy and that the amount should not be returned.
• The appellants relied on the appointment order of the deceased, which specified that his service could be terminated with one month’s notice and that his salary would be released from the contingency fund.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that his father was a permanent employee under the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, as he had completed more than 15 years of service.
• He contended that Clause 12.1 of the policy did not apply to permanent employees, as it was meant for those who had not attained permanency.
• The respondent emphasized that his father had received benefits such as pay revisions and promotions, indicating he was treated as a regular employee.
• He relied on previous judgments where similar orders were passed by the High Court, and an SLP against one of these orders was dismissed.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The respondent’s argument innovatively used the definition of “permanent employee” under the Pension Rules to claim eligibility for compassionate appointment, challenging the strict interpretation of the policy that excluded work-charged employees.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the late father of the respondent, who was employed as a work-charged/contingency employee, was entitled to compassionate appointment as per the existing policy on the date of his demise.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 436, Supreme Court of India: The court relied on this case to distinguish between a ‘permanent’ employee and a ‘regular’ employee, stating that attaining ‘permanent’ status does not automatically grant the status of a regular employee.
• State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 545, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that compassionate appointment is based on the policy existing at the time of the employee’s death, unless a subsequent policy is made retrospectively applicable.
• Indian Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to reiterate that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to regular appointment and is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased.
• Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize the cut-off date for application of the compassionate appointment scheme.
• Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to justify the use of Article 142 of the Constitution to provide complete justice by increasing the compassionate grant amount.
• Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors., [(1997) 6 SCC 766], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms.

Legal Provisions:

• Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979:
  • Rule 2(b): Definition of “Work-Charged employee”.
  • Rule 2(c): Definition of “Permanent employee”.
• Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965:
  • Rule 2(b): Definition of “Government servant”.
• Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 18 August 2008, Clause 12.1: This clause specified that work-charged employees were not eligible for compassionate appointment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 436* was followed to clarify that a ‘permanent’ employee is not necessarily a ‘regular’ employee.
• The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 545* was followed to emphasize that the policy at the time of death is applicable.
• The Supreme Court in Indian Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729* was followed to reiterate that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to regular appointment.
• The Supreme Court in Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412* was followed to emphasize the cut-off date for application of the scheme.
• The Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774* was followed to justify the use of Article 142 to provide complete justice.
• The Supreme Court in Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors., [(1997) 6 SCC 766]* was followed to emphasize that the right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the distinction between a ‘permanent’ and a ‘regular’ employee, as well as the strict interpretation of the compassionate appointment policy in force at the time of the employee’s death. The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right but a benefit granted based on specific criteria and policies. The court was also influenced by the fact that the applicable policy explicitly excluded work-charged employees from compassionate appointment, regardless of their ‘permanent’ status under the Pension Rules.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that the deceased was a regular employee, despite being a ‘permanent’ employee under the Pension Rules. The court emphasized that the applicable policy at the time of death must be strictly followed. The court considered the alternative interpretation that a permanent employee should be treated as a regular employee but rejected it based on the explicit terms of the policy and the distinction between ‘permanent’ and ‘regular’ status. The final decision was based on the legal position that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right and must be granted as per the policy in force.

Reasons for the Decision:

• The deceased was a work-charged employee, not a regular employee.
• The policy in force at the time of death did not provide for compassionate appointment for work-charged employees.
• The status of ‘permanent’ employee under the Pension Rules does not equate to ‘regular’ employee status.
• Compassionate appointment is not an inherent right but a benefit based on specific policies.

“It is trite to say that 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.”

“In our view, the aforesaid plea misses the point of distinction between a work-charged employee, a permanent employee and a regular employee.”

“The conclusion to be drawn from the aforesaid is that attaining the status of permanent employee would entitle one only to a minimum of the pay-scale without any increments.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. All three judges concurred with the final judgment.

The court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the policy and the legal distinction between different categories of employees. The decision has implications for future cases involving compassionate appointment for work-charged employees, as it clarifies that ‘permanent’ status under pension rules does not automatically confer eligibility for compassionate appointment.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced. The court reiterated the existing principles regarding compassionate appointment and the distinction between different types of employees.

Key Takeaways

• Dependents of work-charged employees are not automatically entitled to compassionate appointment, even if the employee had attained ‘permanent’ status under pension rules.
• The policy in force at the time of the employee’s death is the governing factor for compassionate appointment.
• A ‘permanent’ employee is not equivalent to a ‘regular’ employee for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
• The court, using its powers under Article 142, increased the compassionate grant from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-.

The judgment clarifies the legal position regarding compassionate appointment for work-charged employees and will likely impact future cases by emphasizing the importance of policy compliance and the distinction between different types of employment status. The decision underscores the need for clear and specific policies regarding compassionate appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the respondent be released to him along with accrued interest, and an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be paid to him within two months. If the payment is not made within two months, it will carry a simple interest of 12% per annum until the date of payment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The court noted that the policy of 18 August 2008 was amended on 29 September 2014, increasing the compassionate grant amount from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. A subsequent circular on 31 August 2016, allowed compassionate appointment for dependents of work-charged employees, but this was clarified on 21 March 2017, stating that pending cases before 31 August 2016, would be decided as per the amended policy of 29 September 2014, making them eligible only for compassionate grant and not compassionate appointment. This amendment was not applicable to the respondent’s case as the policy was not made retrospectively applicable.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a ‘permanent’ employee under the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, is not equivalent to a ‘regular’ employee for the purposes of compassionate appointment. The judgment clarifies that the policy in force at the time of the employee’s death is the governing factor for compassionate appointment, and the status of ‘permanent’ employee does not automatically confer eligibility for compassionate appointment if the policy explicitly excludes work-charged employees. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce a change in the previous positions of law, but rather clarifies its application in the context of work-charged employees.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled against the respondent, holding that the deceased, being a work-charged employee, was not eligible for compassionate appointment under the policy in force at the time of his death. The court emphasized the distinction between ‘permanent’ and ‘regular’ employees and clarified that the policy must be strictly adhered to. However, using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court increased the compassionate grant to Rs. 2,00,000/-, providing some relief to the respondent’s family.