A 3-man bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Krishna Murari , has through the Judgment of the case- State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Amit Shrivas, delivered on September 29, 2020, stated once again that there cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succor (assistance) to a needy family.
The Apex-Court has made it amply clear that this has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.
In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the only issue which was to be examined was whether the late father of the respondent, who admittedly was employed as a work-charged/contingency employee in the Tribal Welfare Department was entitled to the compassionate appointment as per the existing policy on the date of his death.
According to the SC, attaining the status of permanent employee would entitle one only to a minimum of the pay-scale without any increments. The respondent’s counsel sought to place stress on this aspect to contend that this would not apply because in this case Kamonnati and increments were given. However, the SC has noted that in the order of February 7, 2002 granting the benefit of monetary kamonnati to employees, including the respondent’s father it was specified that the same would not affect the posts of such employees.
The moot point, thus, is that having been granted increments, could a person be said to have reached the status of a regular employee? In order to answer this question the Court noted that while considering this aspect, it was specifically opined that even” if some persons are given the benefit wrongly , that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is well known that right to equality under Article 14 is not in the negative terms.”
The Court has explained that it is not saying so with the objective of giving a licence to the appellants to withdraw any of the benefits, which are already granted. However, the Court has said that, at the same time it cannot be concluded that the status acquired by the concerned employee is that of a regular employee upon having achieved the status of a permanent employee in service.
Thus, the classification of the late father of the respondent as a permanent employee, and this distinction between a ‘permanent’ status and a ‘regular’ status appears to have been lost sight of in the impugned judgments.
The SC has also noticed the reliance placed by the respondent’s counsel on certain other cases where orders similar in nature were passed by the HC and an SLP against one of these orders was dismissed, but then the Court has already observed that this will not give a right for perpetuating something which is not permissible in law.
The SC reminds that it has examined the issue of compassionate appointment in a recent judgment in the case – Indian Bank & Others v. Promila & another –(2020) 2 SCC 729 in its paras 3, 4 and 5 as under :
“3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme applicable and, thus, this Court directed the scheme prevalent, on the date of the death, to be placed before this Court for consideration, as the HC appears to have dealt with a scheme which was of a subsequent date. The need for this also arose on account of the legal position being settled by the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank & Another v. M. Mahesh Kumar-(2015) 7 SCC 412, qua what would be the cut-off date for application of such scheme.
“4.It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court (SC) , that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succor to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away.
“5. An aspect examined by this judgment is as to whether a claim for compassionate employment under a scheme of a particular year could be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. The answer to this has been emphatically in the negative. It has been also observed that the grant of family pension and payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The crucial aspect is to turn to the scheme itself to consider as to what are the provisions made in the scheme for such compassionate appointment.”
The SC has stated that thus, it was unable to give any relief to the respondent, much it would have liked, under the circumstances, but are constrained by the legal position. The family of the late employee has already been paid the entitlement as per applicable policy.
Being of the view that, it (SC) can provide some assistance to the respondent in view of the Circular of March 21, 2017, which records that pending cases will be decided in accordance with the directions issued for compassionate appointment on September 29, 2014.The present case is really not a pending case before the authority, but a pending lis (litigation) before the SC.
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and expressed the view that it would be appropriate to use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties by increasing the amount from Rs one lakh to Rs 2 lakh. The SC has adopted the same approach in the case- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Others v. Nirval Singh – (2019) 6 SCC 774.
Through this appeal, the respondent raised a claim of entitlement to compassionate appointment on account of demise of his father late Ranglal Shrivas ,who was working as a driver in the Tribal Welfare Department, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, since June 6, 1984 till he passed away on December 11, 2009, that is, over a period of almost 23 years.
