Shukla, J. -- 1. In view of the divergent views of two Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 326/2017 (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Chandra Bosh Tripathi) and a Division Bench at Gwalior Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 326/2015 (Nishar Ahmed v. State of M.P.) the following question was referred to the Larger Bench :

“Whether the right for consideration of compassionate appointment is a vested right?” and “in case of consideration of case of compassionate appointment pursuant to death of deceased employee, whether the policy prevailing at the time of death of employee or the policy prevailing at the time of application for compassionate appointment would be applicable?”.

2. The Division Bench at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 326/2017 (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Chandra Bosh Tripathi) following the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of Maharashtra and others v. Manoj Kumar Dehria and another [2010(4) MPHT 18(FB)] held that the policy of compassionate appointment prevailing at the time of consideration of the application shall be applicable and not the policy prevailing at the time of death of the Government Servant. The Division Bench at Gwalior Bench in Writ Appeal No. 326/2015 (Nishar Ahmed v. State of M.P.) held that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground will be considered on the basis of policy which was prevailing at the time of death of the employee, referring the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar [(2015)7 SCC 41].

3. In order to consider the issue that whether the right for consideration of compassionate appointment is a ‘vested right’ it is apposite to refer the various judgments of the apex Court. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpa v. State of Haryana and others [(1994)4 SCC 138], Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das [(2008)15 SCC 560], Union of India and another v. B. Kishan [(2011)4 Scale 298], State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali (1994)4 SCC 448, SBI and others v. Jaspal Kaur [(2007)9 SCC 571] and State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar [(2010)11 SCC 661] the apex Court has been pleased to held that the consideration for appointment of compassionate ground is contrary to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it is only in the nature of concession and, therefore, it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian ground. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.

4. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar [(2010)11 SCC 661] had an occasion to discuss the object of the compassionate appointment scheme and clarified the judgment in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra). It was held that the appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore, therefore, that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking compassionate appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. It was further held that there is no vested right for compassionate appointment and therefore, the policy enforce at the time of consideration of application would apply and not the scheme enforce earlier to the said scheme.

5. In the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh [(2014)13 SCC 583], the apex Court again had taken into consideration the said issue and clarifying the same in para 6, 11 and 15, which are reproduced as under :

“6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has