The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to apply the provisions of the Scheme and the applicable Rules at the time of the claim and its consideration for compassionate appointment.

JUDGMENT

Subrata Talukdar, J. - The short question which arises in this appeal is as follows:

Whether the appellant is entitled to claim compassionate appointment with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank ( for short the Bank) in terms of the Bank's Scheme for compassionate employment (for short the Scheme or the said Scheme).

The appellant, who was the writ petitioner before the Hon'ble Single Bench in WPa 3116 of 2021, applied for compassionate appointment with the Bank on 8th of april 2019. The father of the appellant had died in service on 28th of June 2017 while engaged as a Messenger in the Group-D category.

The Bank rejected the claim of the appellant by a communication dated 16th November 2019 citing the ground that the father of the appellant had died before the said Scheme came into force on the 6thof March 2019.

Mr. Ghoshal, Learned Counsel for the Bank, submits that the said Scheme could not be applied retrospectively. It is submitted that the said Scheme was adopted for application in respect of Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) by the parent National Bank for agricultural and Rural Development (for short NaBaRD) on 9th January 2019. The Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (supra) received a communication for implementation of the Scheme dated the 6th of March 2019.

It is submitted that although the appellant applied on 8th april 2019, i.e. after the implementation of the Scheme on the 6th of March 2019, his father had died on 28th June 2017, i.e. much prior to the date of both adoption of the Scheme by NaBaRD and its implementation by the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank on the 6th of March 2019.

In respect of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ghoshal relies upon the authorities of Civil appeal No. 5815 of 2019, In Re: assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam & Ors. Vs. Esthappan Cherian & anr. at Paragraph 14 ; Civil appeal No. 8564 of 2015, In Re: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. amit Shrivas at Paragraph 22; and Civil appeal No. 2798 of 2010, In Re: Indian Bank & Ors. Vs. Promila & anr.at Paragraph 17.

Relying on Ca 5815 of 2019 (supra),Learned Counsel for the Bank submits that the proposition is now well-established that a Rule or a law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear or manifest intention to be read as such.

Relying on Ca 8564 of 2015 (supra), Mr. Ghoshal submits that the ratio of the decision in Ca 5815 of 2019 (supra) was applied to a claim for compassionate appointment. It was, inter alia, held necessary that a claim for compassionate appointment under a Scheme of a particular year could not be normally decided based on a subsequent Scheme. In Ca 8564 of 2015 it was reiterated that it is now judicially settled that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to normal appointment and there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment.

Finally relying on Ca 2798 of 2010 (supra), Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that when settled judicial principles applicable to compassionate appointment are read in terms of the law settled on such point, a claim to compassionate appointment can be placed before the concerned authority only in terms of the Scheme applicable as prevailing on the date of death of the employee.

It is therefore submitted by the appellant that since the father of the appellant died in 2017, i.e. prior to coming into force of the said Scheme in March 2019, the Hon'ble Single Bench was not correct in directing the Bank to process the claim of the appellant.

Per Contra, arguing for the respondent No.2/ the writ petitioner, Mr. Manish Kumar Das, Learned advocate, submits that although the father of the writ petitioner died in 2017, the writ petitioner had applied in 2019. at the time of application the said Scheme was subsisting. Therefore, the Bank was duty bound to consider the claim of the writ petitioner in terms of the subsisting Scheme. Furthermore, Mr. Das submits that the Scheme itself provides for consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner and such has been correct