A claim for compassionate appointment must be governed by the policy in force on the date of the employee's death. Subsequent amendments introducing disqualifications cannot retrospectively extinguish accrued rights, especially for minor dependents whose claims were preserved under the original policy.

C A V Order

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.23113 of 2026
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2026

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing Exhibit P3 communication issued by the 2nd respondent;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner de hors the publication of master plan;

iii) Translation of documents in vernacular language may be dispensed with for the time being;

iv) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court shall deem just.

(SIC)

2. The building permit application submitted by the petitioner is rejected stating that there is an existing master plan.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality.

4. The petitioner submitted a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act on 03.07.2026. Thereafter the writ petition is filed on 06.07.2026 even before the expiry of the statutory period. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage. I make it clear that after the statutory period, the petitioner is free to file a fresh writ petition.

This writ petition is dismissed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that a bare perusal of the Circular dated 23.02.2019 issued by the General Administration Department which is an updated compilation of instructions regarding compassionate appointment demonstrates that the said amendment was intended to operate retrospectively, i.e. with effect from 14.06.2013 itself. Learned State counsel submits that the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 199 of 2022, has categorically held that the policy which is in force at the time of consideration of the application of compassionate appointment is the relevant policy. This Court has further held that compassionate appointment must be strictly governed by the conditions stipulated in the applicable policy. The policy in force at the time of the application of compassionate appointment made by the petitioners herein was circular dated 14.06.2013, the amended Clause 6A which was added vide notification dated 29.08.2016, and the updated compilation circular dated 23.02.2019.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition carefully.

7. The short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment is liable to be considered in accordance with the Compassionate Appointment Policy prevailing on the date of death of the deceased employee or in accordance with the policy as subsequently amended on 29.08.2016 and incorporated in the consolidated circular dated 23.02.2019.

8. The facts are not in dispute. Late Shri Devji Mandavi died in harness on 11.05.2016 while serving as Head Constable under the respondents. On the date of his death, the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 14.06.2013 was in force. Petitioner No.1 submitted an application on 13.07.2016 seeking compassionate appointment