Compassionate appointment does not create vested rights; applications are governed by the scheme in effect at the time of consideration, even if this is retrospectively applied.

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.

[2] The central issues which fall for determination before this Court in this writ petition, firstly, pertain to the interpretation of the compassionate appointment scheme introduced by the Government of Tripura under Notification dated 2nd March, 2019 having its effect given from 21.11.2018, secondly, whether an executive order can be given retrospective effect and thirdly, whether an application for compassionate appointment would be considered in terms of the scheme prevalent on the date of its consideration.

[3] Before I delve into the interpretative process of the above issues, relevant facts of the present case should be arrayed, for convenience:

[3.1] The father of the petitioner, namely, Shyamal Kumar Jamatia while discharging his duties under the State-respondents died in harness on 17.01.2019 leaving behind three survivors, including the petitioner herein. The deceased employee was the only breadwinner of his family. The wife and daughter of the deceased being ineligible for claiming compassionate appointment under the scheme, the petitioner having Master degree in Sociology raised claim for a suitable job on account of sudden demise of his father under the scheme for Die-in-harness as notified on 26.12.2015 [“Scheme of 2015”, for short]. The petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format of the scheme. The matter was enquired into and while such process was going on, the Government of Tripura introduced a new “Scheme for compassionate appointment” under Notification dated 02.03.2019 which came into effect from 21.11.2018 (“Scheme of 2019”, for short) [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] issued by the General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department, Government of Tripura in supersession of all other previous schemes/instructions/notifications for providing employment or financial assistance to the eligible members of the Government employees who died in harness.

[3.2] On consideration of the application of the petitioner in consonance with the relevant clause of the Scheme of 2019, the respondent No.3 i.e. the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura informed the petitioner that he was not entitled to avail the benefit of appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme but, his claim was covered under Support Category-1 (Special Pension) under the Scheme of 2019.

[4] Assailing the adverse decision of the respondents denying his claim for compassionate appointment under the respondent No.3, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate redress. The case of the petitioner is that his claim for compassionate appointment was covered under the Scheme of 2015, since his father died on 17.01.2019; before the date of notification of the Scheme of 2019 (02.03.2019).

[5] Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the retroactive operation of the Scheme of 2019 from a date anterior to the date of notification i.e. w.e.f. 21.11.2018, per-se was illegal and arbitrary since the petitioner acquired vested right under the Scheme of 2015. In other words, his accrued right was taken away by the respondents.

[6] Contending the aforesaid facts and law, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner heavily relied upon a judgment and order of a coordinate Bench [S. Talapatra, J] of this Court decided in WP(C) No. 502 of 2020 d