AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner in the instant petition is challenging the vires of Compassionate Appointment Police, 2013 issued by Madhya Pradesh Electricity
Board and prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to given equal treatment to the petitioners and decide their application
on merits and if they found eligible granted compassionate appointment to them.
In brief the facts of the case are like that the petitioners' fathers were working under the respondents department. During their service tenure, they
died natural death. After the death of their fathers the responsibility of maintaining the whole family fell on the shoulders of the petitioners and
therefore, they immediately preferred application for grant of compassionate appointment, however, at that relevant time there was ban on
compassionate appointment. After lapse of considerable period of time the respondents framed policy regarding grant of compassionate appointment
in the year 2013, in which the respondents have fixed cut off date as 10/04/2012, meaning thereby the claims prior to said cut-off date would not be
entertained. Thereafter, vide notification dated 29/12/2014 the aforesaid policy has been amended, whereby relaxation was granted to the extent that
except the cases of death due to Casualty, Electrical Accident, Death in a vehicle accident during working hour etc. no other cases shall be
considered for compassionate appointment. Thus, the respondents have completely ousted the petitioners from the zone of consideration for
compassionate appointment in a very arbitrary manner and they have not bothered to think that number of needy persons would be affected by
inserting such condition, therefore, they have been filed this petition.
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed a reply by submitting that father of the petitioner No.1 was died on 10/06/2003; petitioner No.2 in the year 1985,
petitioner No.3 on 08/09/2000 and petitioner Nos.4 father had died on 06/12/1994 and they are claiming compassionate appointment on the basis of
new policy framed in the year 2013. Petitioner No.4 has earlier preferred a writ petition before the Principal Seat of this Court, which was registered
as WP No. 5610/2006 (Wasim Ali Vs. State of M.P.), wherein the claim of compassionate appointment has been rejected vide its order dated
19/05/2006. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he has preferred WA No. 571/2009, which was also dismissed on 09/04/2014, therefore, the
present writ petition is not maintainable with respect to petitioner No.4., however, the petitioners have suppressed the material facts from this Court
and on this count alone this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The case of the petitioner No..2 was also considered and he was not found eligible
and entitled for grant of compassionate appointment and the same has been communicated to him, vide letter dated 05/09/1993 and the same has not
been challenged by the petitioner No.2 at any point of time before issuance of new Police of 2013, therefore, he cannot challenge the subsequent
police without there being any locus to challenge the same.
Vide notification dated 01/09/2000, the erstwhile M.P. State Electricity Board had imposed a ban on compassionate appointment due to financial
crisis, therefore, the cases of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 could not have considered for granting compassionate appointment to them. During this
period the fathers of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were died, there was a ban on compassionate appointment, therefore, they cannot be granted the
benefit of compassionate appointment and the same was also informed to them.
In the year 2003, the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board bifurcated into 5 different companies. Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut
Vitran Company Ltd., framed a new policy for compassionate appointment, which came into force from 03/06/2013 and made it applicable w.e.f.
10/04/2012 only for the dependants of deceased employees of the company, whose services were finally merged into the Company and as per Clause
3.7 of the Said scheme provides that all the applications which are rejected, disposed or pending before 10/04/2012 shall not be considered for the
compassionate appointment. Thereafter, considering sympathetically with regards to the cases of the compassionate appointment in the matters of
the employees of the erstwhile Board had been amended the policy of compassionate appointment, 2013 vide its notification dated 29/12/2014. The
case of the petitioners are not coming under the aforesaid policy, therefore, they are not entitled for the compassionate appointment. Under these
circumstances present petition deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is not disputed that the fathers of the petitioners have died prior to enforcement of the compassionate appointment Police, 2013. The apex Court
in the case of Canara Bank V/s. M. Mahesh Kumar : (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held that the policy prevailing at the time of death of the employee is
required to be applied while considering the application for compassionate appointment and the Bank was directed to consider the application as per
the scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the concerned employee. Para 13 to 19 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below :-
“13. Applying these principles to the case in hand, as discussed earlier, respondent’s father died on 10.10.1998 while he was serving as a clerk
in the appellant-bank and the respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as per the scheme ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ dated
8.05.1993 which was in force at that time. The appellant-bank rejected the respondent’s claim on 30.06.1999 recording that there are no indigent
circumstances for providing employment to the respondent. Again on 7.11.2001, the appellantbank sought for particulars in connection with the issue
of respondent’s employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the cause of action to be considered for compassionate
appointment arose when the Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the judgment referred in Jaspal Kaur’s case, the
claim cannot be decided as per 2005 Scheme providing for ex-gratia payment. The Circular dated 14.2.2005 being an administrative or executive order
cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of 1993.
It is also pertinent to note that 2005 Scheme providing only for ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment stands superseded by the
Scheme of 2014 which has revived the scheme providing for compassionate appointment. As on date, now the scheme in force is to provide
compassionate appointment. Under these circumstances, the appellant- bank is not justified in contending that the application for compassionate
appointment of the respondent cannot be considered in view of passage of time.
Insofar as the contention of the appellantbank that since the respondent’s family is getting family pension and also obtained the terminal
benefits, in our view, is of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in case
the dependant of deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the
age of majority.
In Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493, while dealing with the application made by the widow for
employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under
Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be
acceded to. Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held as under:-
“13. ….But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden
jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being made available to the family â€
this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and
it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to
the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner,
but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation.â€
Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd.’s case, High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits
cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the bank that the
respondents’ family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground.
Considering the scope of the Scheme ‘Dying in Harness Scheme 1993’ then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Court rightly directed the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per
the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference.
So far as the cases in Civil Appeal No.266/2008 and Civil Appeal No.267/2008 are concerned, they are similar and those respondents are similarly
placed and the appeals preferred by the bank are liable to be dismissed. The appellant-bank is directed to consider the case of the respondents in Civil
Appeal Nos. 266/2008 and 267/2008.
In the result, all the appeals preferred by the appellant-bank are dismissed and the appellant bank is directed to consider the case of the
respondents for compassionate appointment as per the Scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the concerned employee. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costsâ€
 8. Similar issue again came up before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.279/2017 and vide order dated 7.12.2017, the Division Bench
has held that the policy of 1997 has been suspended due to financial crunch by issuing office memorandum/circular dated 1.9.2000 and thereafter, the
ban was lifted and amended policy was issued in the year 2013. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Canara Bank
(supra), the issue is no more res integra. The Division Bench vide order dated 7.12.2017, has held as under :-
“Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that admittedly father of the appellant died while performing his duties at 33/11 KV Sub-station
Harsoud and there was no postmortem or medical document to prove that he died due to heart attack and mere mentioning the word 'heart attack' in
Annexure P-3, his application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected. He has also drawn our attention to para 13 of the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank and Another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the circular dated 14.02.2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right
accrued to the respondent as per circular of 1993. Similar is the position here. In the present case, the policy of 1997 has been suspended due to
financial crunch by issuing office memorandum/circular dated 01.09.2000 and thereafter, the ban was lifted and amended policy was issued in the year
2013 and as per the law laid down in the case of Canara Bank and another Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar (Supra) the application for compassionate
appointment has to be decided on the basis of the policy which was prevailing at the time of death of father of the appellant.
Considering the aforesaid, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the case of the appellant
for compassionate appointment on the basis of the policy which was prevailing at the time of death of father of the appellant and pass appropriate
order within a period of three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. No costs.â€
Hence from the reproduced portion of the judgment, it is clear that the application for compassionate appointment is liable to be considered on
the basis of policy prevailing at the death of the employee. Admittedly, in the present case also, the respondents have rejected the application of the
petitioner under the Policy of 2013, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for consideration of their application for compassionate appointment.
So far as the validity of the compassionate appointment Policy, 2013 is concerned. This Policy came for scrutiny before the Division Bench of this
Court in WA No. 270/2017 and vide order dated 23/10/2017, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal by upholding the policies
of the company in respect of co passionate appointment.
It is the cardinal principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as a matter of
right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances i.e. eligibility and financial
conditions of the family, etc., the application has to be considered in accordance with scheme.
The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209, has held as under:-
“15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief
to the employees family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is
inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative
merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of
compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by
way of policy of an employer, which partakes the character of service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as
the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to
the purpose it seeks to achieve.â€
In view whereof, we do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.