Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is subject to the policy in force at the time of death, with delays undermining its purpose.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India , has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

(i) That, the impugned order dated 13/08/2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent may kindly be set-aside with a further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compensatory appointment as per the Policy prevailing at the time of consideration of his application for compassionate appointment and accordingly the respondent authority may kindly be directed to grant the compensatory appointment to the petitioner.

(ii) That any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that father of petitioner had died in harness on 16.10.2015. At the relevant time, there was no policy for appointment on compassionate ground. The dependents of the deceased employee were only entitled to an ex gratia compensation of Rs.One Lac which was thereafter enhanced to Rs.Two Lacs and vide policy of the year 2016 even dependents of work-charged contingency paid employees were also made eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that application has to be considered on the basis of the policy which was in vogue on the date of consideration. Application of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on 13.08.2024, therefore, the rejection of his application on the ground that he is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground is bad in law.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

4. The undisputed fact is that father of petitioner had expired on 16.10.2015. Although it is the claim of petitioner that he applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 07.01.2016 but it appears that the case of petitioner was recommended by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division Dabra, District Gwalior by letter dated 30.07.2024 which was dismissed by Superintending Engineer, Water Resources, Division Gwalior by order dated 13.08.2024. So far as the submission made by counsel for petitioner that the policy which was in vogue on the date of consideration of application would apply is concerned, the said submission is contrary to law.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to Govt. Deptt. Of Education (Primary) Vs. Bheemesh reported in 2021 SCC Online 1264 has held as under :

12. But we do not consider it necessary to do so. It is no doubt true that there are, as contended by the learned senior Counsel for the respondent, two lines of decisions rendered by Benches of equal strength. But the apparent conflict between those two lines of decisions, was on account of the difference between an amendment by which an existing benefit was withdrawn or diluted and an amendment by which the existing benefit was enhanced. The interpretation adopted by this Court varied depending upon the nature of the amendment. This can be seen by presenting the decisions referred to by the learned senior counsel for the respondent in a tabular column as follows: