Supreme Court settles Compassionate Appointment Policy: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 18 November 2021

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a government employee’s family claim a compassionate appointment based on a policy introduced after the employee’s death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying which policy should apply in such cases. This judgment settles a dispute regarding the timing of applicable policies for compassionate appointments. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The father of the respondent, Ashish Awasthi, was employed as a Chowkidar in the Public Health Engineering Department in Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh. He was a work-charge employee paid from the contingency fund. He passed away on 08 October 2015. At the time of his death, the prevailing policy, dated 29 September 2014, did not provide for compassionate appointment for dependents of work-charge employees, but instead, offered a compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. Subsequently, on 31 August 2016, the policy was amended to include compassionate appointments for dependents of work-charge employees.

Ashish Awasthi applied for a compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the authorities on 15 March 2017, citing that the amended policy was applicable prospectively from 22 December 2016. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh initially dismissed Awasthi’s writ petition. However, a Division Bench of the High Court later allowed an appeal, directing the authorities to consider Awasthi’s case under the amended policy of 31 August 2016. This decision was based on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of *Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia*.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Ashish Awasthi, initially filed a writ petition before the High Court, which directed the authorities to decide his representation as per the law. Subsequently, his application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the policy of 31 August 2016 was applicable prospectively from 22 December 2016, and since his father died on 8 October 2015, he was not eligible. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. However, the Division Bench, relying on the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in *Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia*, allowed the appeal and directed the authorities to consider the case under the subsequent policy of 31 August 2016.

The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation and application of policies related to compassionate appointments. The key point of contention is whether the policy in effect at the time of the employee’s death or a subsequent policy should be considered for compassionate appointment. The judgment refers to the circular dated 29 September 2014, which provided a compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs for the dependents of work-charge employees but did not provide for compassionate appointment. The subsequent circular dated 31 August 2016, amended the policy to include compassionate appointments for dependents of work-charge employees.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh) Arguments:

• The State argued that the policy prevalent at the time of the death of the employee should be the only policy to be considered for compassionate appointment.
• The State relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in *Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr.* and *State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas* to support its argument that subsequent policies cannot be applied retrospectively.
• The State contended that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in applying the subsequent policy of 31 August 2016, as the deceased employee died on 8 October 2015, before the amended policy came into effect.

Respondent (Ashish Awasthi) Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the subsequent policy of 31 August 2016, should be applied to his case, as it provides for compassionate appointment for dependents of work-charge employees.
• The respondent contended that since he had already been appointed based on the High Court’s order, his appointment should not be disturbed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the claim for compassionate appointment should be considered based on the policy prevalent at the time of the employee’s death or a subsequent policy.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on *Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729* and *State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496* to reiterate the principle that the policy prevalent at the time of death of the employee is the only one to be considered for compassionate appointment. The Court effectively overruled the ratio of *Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia, 2010 (4) MPHT 18* by setting aside the order of the High Court which relied on this authority.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established legal principle that compassionate appointments should be governed by the policy in effect at the time of the employee’s death. The Court emphasized the need for consistency and adherence to precedent, citing its own previous judgments to reinforce this principle. The Court also highlighted that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, and therefore, it must be governed by the rules in place at the time the cause of action arose.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual circumstances of the case.

The Court considered the argument that the respondent had already been appointed, but rejected it, stating that an appointment based on a flawed judgment cannot be protected. The Court did not find any alternative interpretation that would justify applying the subsequent policy.

The Court stated, “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 deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.”

The Court further observed, “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.”

Finally, the Court held, “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 order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be protected.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the outcome and the reasoning.

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointments are governed by the policy in effect at the time of the employee’s death.
• Subsequent policies cannot be applied retrospectively to claims for compassionate appointments.
• An appointment made based on a flawed judgment cannot be protected.
• The Supreme Court’s judgments in *Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr.* and *State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas* reiterate the settled position of law on this matter.

This judgment clarifies the legal position on compassionate appointments and ensures consistency in applying policies. It prevents the application of subsequent policies, which could lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in the administration of compassionate appointments.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, if returned by the respondent, should be paid back to him.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for compassionate appointment, the policy prevalent at the time of the death of the employee is the only policy to be considered and not any subsequent policy. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new principle of law but clarifies the application of the existing principle. This case reaffirms the position of law settled by the Supreme Court in *Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr.* and *State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas*.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, setting aside the High Court’s orders that had directed the authorities to consider compassionate appointments under the subsequent policy. The Court reiterated that the policy in effect at the time of the employee’s death is the only policy to be considered for compassionate appointment. The Court’s decision ensures that compassionate appointments are governed by the rules in place at the time the cause of action arose, thereby maintaining consistency and adherence to precedent.