Eligibility for compassionate appointment is determined by policies in effect at the time of the employee's death; subsequent changes cannot be applied retrospectively.

ORDER :

1. The Writ Petition has been filed for an issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents-Bank to consider petitioner's application dated 18.06.2016 and subsequent oral representations to provide suitable post (based on the judgment of this Court dated 13.09.2021) for compassionate appointment on account of the untimely demise of death of petitioner's father on 27.02.2015 and to pass consequential orders within three months from the date of disposal of the present petition.

2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner are as follows:-

The petitioner's father, namely, Chakrathari was employed as a messenger in the respondent Bank for more than 18 years. While he was in service, he died on 27.02.2015 leaving behind his wife, two married daughters, one unmarried daughter and the petitioner. The family, having lost the sole breadwinner, faced significant financial constraints and the petitioner had to discontinue his diploma course in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. Therefore, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 18.06.2016 which was well within 3 years, providing necessary documents (i.e. legal heir certificate & death certificate) but the application has not been processed despite repeated requests. In the meanwhile, the 4^th respondent issued cheque in the name of petitioner’s mother and deposited the cheque amount in the account without their consent. The respondent Bank on a wrong understanding of the legal position paid the family a compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs stating that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment but only monetary benefits. Hence the petitioner returned the compensation deposited by the respondent bank and instead requested compassionate appointment based on the e-circular dated 16.03.2021 issued by bank, wherein, in case, an employee dies while in service, his family can claim compassionate appointment. Till date the request of the petitioner was not considered, hence, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit stated as follows:-

(i) The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is untenable, as per the prevailing scheme at the time of his father’s death in year 2015. The respondent- Bank followed circular No.CDO/P&HRD- PM/65/2014-15 dated 27.12.2014, which limited compassionate appointments to exceptional circumstances, none of which applied to the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner and his family voluntarily opted for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount by preferring an application dated 16.12.2015 and already accepted the Ex-gratia lump sum amount of Rs.5, 00,000/- without any demur, and making a subsequent claim for compassionate appointment is untenable. Furthermore, the e-circular No. CDO/P&HRD-PM/90/2020-21 dated 16.03.2021, which was neither prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee nor retrospectively applicable to the present case. During Covid pandemic, respondents-Bank revised its scheme for compassionate appointment effective from the date of the circular, however, covering death due to Covid-19 with retrospective from 24.03.2020. So, the circular which was relied upon by the petitioner is explicitly and strictly limits the retrospective application of the circular from 24.03.2020, exclusively to the dependants of employees who have expired due to covid-19 not retrospectively applicable to the petitioner