The absence of a scheme for compassionate appointment for dependents of deceased employees in the establishment at the time of consideration of the application precludes the right to be considered for compassionate appointment. The subsequent policy providing compassionate appointment would not apply retroactively. The employee in the Work Charged and Contingency Paid establishment does not acquire the status of a regular employee.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.

The present intra Court appeal is filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 22-1-2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as ‘writ petitioner’) has been allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

2. Assailing the said order, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/ appellant submitted that the father of respondent No. 1 was an employee in the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment. The services of the deceased employee was governed by the Rules called ‘M. P. Geology and Mining Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975’ (herein after referred as ‘Rules of 1975’). He submitted that there was no scheme for compassionate appointment for the dependents of a deceased employee of Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee on the date of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner. The said application was rejected by order dated 21-3-2013 on the ground that there was no scheme for compassionate appointment to a dependent of deceased employee of the said establishment. In lieu of compassionate appointment, there was scheme of grant of ex gratia payment. The counsel for the appellant/State further submitted that the father of the writ petitioner was regularized in the Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment itself and he was not an employee of the regular establishment.

3. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment is not a right of an employee and since there was no scheme on the date of consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, he was not entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of Maharasthra vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia, reported in 2010(4) MPHT 18 and also the decision of another Full Bench in the case of State of M. P. vs. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, 2018(4) M.P.L.J. (F.B.) 657.

4. Counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that since the father of the writ petitioner was regularized and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition directing for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that the father of respondent No.1 was employed as a Jeep Driver in the Regional Office of Directorate of Geology and Mining Department, Jabalpur in the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment. On completion of period of three years of service in Work-Charged and Contingency Paid establishment, by an order dated 22-7-1999 his pay was fixed under the M. P. Pay Revision Rules, 1998. As per Rule 2(b) of Rules of 1975 ‘Contingency paid employee’ means a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and whose pay is on monthly basis and is charged to ‘office contingency’ excluding employees who are employed for certain period only in the year. Rule 2(c) defines ‘employee’ to mean a contingency paid employee whereas, Rule 2(e) defines ‘regular employee’ under the State Government to mean government servants who are in regular employment holding permanent or temporary post under State Government as distinct from the posts paid from contingency. Rule 2(f) defines ‘service’ to mean M. P. Contingency Paid Employees service.

6. Thus, from the aforesaid Rules of 1975, it is crystal clear that the father of the writ petitioner was a contingency paid employee and not regular employee under the State Government. It is not in dispute that on the date of consideration of his case for compassionate appointment i.e. 21-3-2013, there was no scheme for compassionate appointment in respect of death of