The applicable policy for compassionate appointment is the one in force at the time of the employee's death, not the date of application filing.

ORDER :

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. With the consent of parties, the appeal is taken for final disposal.

2. Appellant impugns order dated 20.09.2024 whereby a writ petition filed by the respondent has been disposed of with a direction to the appellant to consider the case of respondent afresh of grant of compassionate appointment.

3. Father of the respondent was working as a Watchman in a work-charge establishment with the appellant/Department. Father of respondent died while in employment on 02.07.2015. Respondent filed an application on 15.09.2016 for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected on 31.05.2017. Thereafter, respondent filed a writ petition before this Court being WP No.12012/2017 which has now been disposed of on 24.04.2024 directing appellants to decide representation within 90 days. Said representation has also been rejected and consequently, respondent filed subject writ petition being WP No.27453/2024 which has been allowed by impugned order dated 20.09.2024.

4. We may note that there was a policy formulated by the appellants for grant of benefit to the legal heirs of decease-employee. Initial policy dated 29.09.2014 provided for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.2.00 lakhs on the demise of serving employee who died in harness, in case he was in the work charge establishment and a contingency employee. Said policy was amended on 31.08.2016, when it was introduced for the first time that compassionate appointment would be given to an eligible family member of such an employee who dies while in service.

5. As per the respondent, respondent filed an application on 15.09.2016 for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of amended policy dated 31.08.2016. The case of appellant/State is that the said policy was prospective in nature and was applicable to cases of employees who died in harness, after the policy was introduced on 31.08.2016. It was contended that since father of respondent had expired on 02.07.2015, he was covered under the 2014 Policy and accordingly, entitled only to the compensation amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs.

6. As per the appellants, the policy formulated by the earlier circular dated 29.09.2014 was to grant compensation and not "compassionate appointment". However, for the first time by circular dated 31.08.2016, a new policy was incorporated for grant of compassionate appointment.

7. Learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of another Single Judge in WP No.19736/2019 wherein learned Single Judge has noticed a difference of opinion between a judgment of the Division Bench dated 03.05.2019 in WA No.601/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh & anr. vs. Sonu Jatav) and judgment dated 19.06.2019 ( Harish vs. Public Health Engineering Department ). Learned Single Judge has also referred to judgment of Division Bench dated 19.06.2019 in case of Harish vs. Public Health Engineering Department where the Division Bench held that the circular dated 31.08.2016 was prospective in nature and would not apply in case for compassionate appointment, prior to the date of circular. Learned Single Judge in WP No.19739/2019 ( Manoj Gurjar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ) decided on 23.11.2023, held that as Sonu Jatav (Supra) was a judgment prior in time to Harish (supra), the same would be prevail and accordingly, applied the ratio of judgment of Sonu Jatav (supra).

8. Though, it appears that there is a difference of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court, we may note that this issue is no loner res- integra because the same has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi , (2022) 2 SCC 157 . In the case of