STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus AMIT SHRIVAS

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 46 · Decided: 29-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
AMIT SHRIVAS
(Civil Appeal No. 8564 of 2015)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment – Compassionate appointment – Claim for –
Rejected on the ground that as per existing policy there was no
provision for compassionate appointment, where Government
Servant was getting salary from the work-charge/contingency fund
– However, as per the policy, wife of the deceased employee was
sanctioned compassionate grant of Rs. One Lakh – Writ Petition –
Allowed by High Court holding that once the employee became
permanent under the Pension Rules, the policy was not applicable
and directed the department to consider the case of the claimant
for compassionate appointment – Writ Appeal before Division Bench
taking the plea that the deceased Government employee since was
not a regular employee, within meaning of r. 2(b) of Civil Service
Conduct Rules, the claimant was not entitled to compassionate
appointment – Dismissed by Division Bench of High Court – Appeal
to Supreme Court – Held: An employee does not acquire status of
regular employee upon having achieved the status of permanent
employee – claimant not entitled to compassionate appointment –
By a subsequent circular compassionate grant amount has been
enhanced to Rs. Two Lakhs – In exercise of power u/Art. 142 of the
Constitution, compassionate grant amount is enhanced from Rs. One
Lakh to Rs. Two Lakhs – Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct
Rules, 1965 – r. 2(b) – Constitution of India – Art. 142.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There cannot be any inherent right to
compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on
certain criteria, especially to provide succor to a needy family.
This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 46
46
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
47
date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable
retrospectively. Since the demise of the late father of the
respondent, 11 years have passed and really speaking, the aspect
of providing succor to the family immediately does not survive.
[Paras 14 and 15][53-C-D]
State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari &
Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 545 : [2012] 7 SCR 1072; Indian
Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 729 :
[2020] 1 SCR 408 – relied on.
2.1 There is distinction between a work-charged employee,
a permanent employee and a regular employee. The late father
of the respondent was undoubtedly a work-charged employee
and it is nobody’s case that he has not been paid out of work-
charged/contingency fund. He attained the status of a permanent
employee on account of having completed 15 years of service,
which entitled him to certain benefits including pension and
krammonati. This will, however, not ipso facto give him the status
of a regular employee. [Para 16][53-F-G]
2.2. Under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, employees can be classified as
permanent, permanent seasonal, probationers, badlis,
apprentices, temporary and fixed-term employment employees.
A work-charged contingency employee can also be classified
under any of the aforementioned categories and under the said
Standing Orders, the classification as permanent can be granted
even on the completion of 6 months service in a clear vacancy. A
‘permanent’ classification does not amount to regularisation.
[Paras 17 and 18][54-A-B-C]
Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC
436 : [2016] 9 SCR 141 – relied on.
2.3 An employee does not acquire the status 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 the distinction
between a ‘permanent’ status and a ‘regular’ status appears to
have been lost sight of in the impugned judgments. [Paras 20
and 21][55-E, F]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. AMIT SHRIVAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
3.1 The family of the late employee has already been paid
the entitlement as per applicable policy. The respondent is not
entitled to any relief. However, there is a subsequent development
arising from certain additional documents placed on record
pertaining to the amendment to the policy of 18.8.2008 vide
Circular dated 29.9.2014. In terms of this Circular, the
compassionate grant amount was increased from Rs. 1,00,000/-
to Rs. 2,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.