A policy requiring a minimum remaining service period for eligibility for compassionate appointment is constitutionally invalid if it is arbitrary or discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

Heard Mr. N Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner putting a challenge to the Minutes of the SLC dated 02.03.2023 whereby the name of the petitioner which had appeared amongst the candidates whose claims were rejected. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his father did not have minimum of 3 years service left to his credit after his expiry in harness in terms of the OM No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015. The petitioner along with other similarly situated petitioners had approached the High Court being W.P(C) No. 7117/2019 whereby the earlier decision taken was interfered with and the matter was remanded back to the State Level Committee to reconsider and to complete the exercise within a period of 45 days vide order dated 12.12.2022. Subsequently, the matter was again decided by the State Level Committee held on 02.03.2023 and insofar as the petitioner and four other candidates are concerned, where the concerned government servant who had died in service and the claims of their dependent members for compassionate appointment were hit by Clause No. 1 of the OM No ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dated 01.06.2015 which stipulates that minimum period of three years service if not left for the deceased who died in harness, the cases are not be considered, therefore, the matters stood differed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this decision was deferred in the light of the pending litigation before the High Court whereby a Coordinate bench of this court in a bunch of writ petitions where the lead case is W.P(C) No. 1646/2021 had allowed those writ petitions by setting aside Clause 1 of the OM No. ABP.50/2006/Pt/182. These matters were appealed against by the State before a Division bench of this Court where the lead case is W.A No. 287/2023. The Division Bench finally sustained the order of the Coordinate Bench affirming the conclusions. However, while disposing of the appeals the following directions were made:

15. We find force in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the claim of the State that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is in accordance with the 10(ten) principles enunciated in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) and the Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, is factually incorrect. The learned Single Judge did not find any rationale in the draft note preceding the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was approved by the State Cabinet.

16. The absence of any contemporaneous reasoning diminishes any claim of the State that the choice of 3(three) years was the product of considered administrative evaluation for it not to be interfered with on the ground of such administrative policy being within the domain of executive and the usual restraint of the Courts in treading in such field. The executive must always conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Policy classifications must not be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory without an intelligible basis. Compassionate appointment may not be an absolute vested right but it is a benefit conferred by the employer subject to policy conditions. The non-vested status of compassionate employment does not immunize arbitrary classifications from constitutional scrutiny.

17. On these grounds, we find the declaration of Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 to be constitutionally invalid by the learn