Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose, Krishna Murari, JJ.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
AMIT SHRIVAS – RESPONDENT
Civil Appeal No. 8564 of 2015
Decided on : 29-09-2020
Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – There cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succour to a needy family – This has to be in terms of applicable policy as existing on date of demise unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively – Insofar as providing succour is concerned, since demise of late father of respondent, 11 years have passed and aspect of providing succour to family immediately does not survive – Late father of respondent was a work-charged employee and it is nobody’s case that he has not been paid out of work-charged/contingency fund – He attained status of a permanent employee on account of having completed 15 years of service which entitled him to certain benefits including pension and krammonati – This will, however, not ipso facto give him status of a regular employee – A permanent’ classification does not amount to regularisation – Attaining status of permanent employee would entitle one only to a minimum of pay-scale without any increments – Classification of late father of respondent as a permanent employee and this distinction between a ‘permanent’ status and a ‘regular’ status appears to have been lost sight of in impugned judgments – Family of late employee has already been paid entitlement as per applicable policy – No relief can be given to respondent – However, it would be appropriate to use powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India to do complete justice between parties by increasing amount of compassionate grant from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. [Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 – Rule 2(c)] (Paras 16, 19, 21, 24 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Respondent raises a claim of entitlement to compassionate appointment on account of the demise of his late father who was working as a Driver in the Tribal Welfare Department, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, since 6.6.1984 till he passed away on 11.12.2009, i.e., over a period of almost 23 years. Claim of the respondent was predicated on the nature of employment of his late father, who was initially appointed as a work-charged employee. Only issue which has to be examined is whether the late father of the respondent who admittedly was employed as a work-charged/contingency employee in the Tribal Welfare Department was entitled to the compassionate appointment as per the existing policy on the date of his demise.
Findings of Court:
FDR be released to respondent and that this amount, along with interest which would accrue to the benefit of the respondent, apart from the additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul. J.
The respondent raises a claim of entitlement to compassionate appointment on account of the demise of his father late Shri Ranglal Shrivas, who was working as a Driver in the Tribal Welfare Department, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, since 6.6.1984 till he passed away on 11.12.2009, i.e., over a period of almost 23 years.
2. The claim of the respondent was predicated on the nature of employment of his late father, who was initially appointed as a work-charged employee. On 12.3.1987, he was made permanent and was paid salary at a regular pay-scale. The benefits of revision of pay and krammonati (promotion) were also extended to him from time to time. On the demise of late Shri Ranglal Shrivas, he left behind an ailing wife, a son (i.e., the respondent herein) and three daughters and is stated to have been the sole breadwinner for his family. The family, thus, faced undue economic hardship. A Pension Payment Order (TPO') under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Pension Rules, 1976 was issued in favour of the family on account of his having worked from 12.3.1987 to 11.12.2009 on the basis of his last pay-scale and grade pay. In view of the economic hardship, the respondent filed an application seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment.
3. The request of compassionate appointment was, however, rejected by the third appellant vide order dated 19.8.2010. Reliance was placed on the Policy in force for compassionate appointment dated 18.8.2008, issued by the General Administration Department Ministry, Madhya Pradesh Government. This policy pertains to when a Government servant dies while in service, and if such an employee is earning a salary from the work-charge/contingency fund at the time of his/her demise, then there was no provision for the grant of such appointment. In this behalf, reliance was placed on Clause 12.1 of the Policy, which provided for a compassionate grant of Rs.1,00,000/- to the nominated dependent of such an employee, and in this case, the same was sanctioned to the wife of the deceased. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant clause as under:
12. Provisions for work charge/contingency and daily wager employees
12.1 When employees receiving salary from work charge/contingency fund and daily wager employee die, they would not be eligible for the compassionate appointment; however Rs.1 lakh in one installment in the name of compassionate grant shall be given to the dependent member of the family nominated by them. The amount of gratuity shall not be included in it. The payment of this amount shall be given from the salary head under the head of work charge/contingency of the concerned department."
4. The respondent, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.8.2010, filed WP No. 3542/2012 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench. The Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Tension Rules'), more specifically Rule 2(c), was relied upon. This Rule stipulates that any contingency paid employee or work-charged employee who has completed 15 years or more of service on or after 1.1.1974, as a permanent employee. It would be relevant to reproduce the definition of work-charged employee and permanent employee as set out in Rules 2(b) & 2(c) of the Pension Rules as under:
"2. Definitions. - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, -
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) "Work-Charged employee" means 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;
(c) "Permanent employee" means 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."
5. It is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
