THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus ASHISH AWASTHI

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 18-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
ASHISH AWASTHI
(Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground – Father
of the respondent died on 08.10.2015  – That at the time of death
the deceased employee was serving as a work charge and he was
paid salary from the contingency fund – That the respondent was
provided a compensatory amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as per the policy
prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee –
Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide circular dated
31.08.2016, under which even in the case of death of the work
charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the
appointment on compassionate ground – Respondent filed a writ
petition before the High Court – The Division Bench of the High
Court directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent
for appointment on compassionate ground relying upon and/or
considering the subsequent policy/circular dated 31.08.2016 – On
appeal, held: As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this
Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy
prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is
required to be considered and not the subsequent policy – In that
view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and
set aside – Thus, the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment
on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/
policy dated 31.08.2016 –  As per the policy/circular prevalent at
the time of the death of the deceased employee in case of death of
the employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were
not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were
entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as compensatory amount.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The deceased employee died on 08.10.2015. At
the time of death, he was working as a work charge employee,
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 444
444
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
who was paid the salary from the contingency fund. As per the
policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased
employee, i.e., policy/circular No.C-3- 12/2013/1-3 dated
29.09.2014 in case of death of the employee working on work
charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointment
on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as
compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be
amended vide circular dated 31.08.2016, under which even in
the case of death of the work charge employee, his heirs/
dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate
ground. Relying upon the subsequent circular/policy dated
31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed
the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for
appointment on compassionate ground. As per the settled
preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on
compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death
of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and
not the subsequent policy. [Para 4][447-G-H; 448-A-C]
2. In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and
Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for
compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of
relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee
and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has
been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to
be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas the very scheme
applicable in the present case was under consideration and it
was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the
deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the
matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[Para 4.1][448-C-F]
Bank of Maharashtra v. Manoj Kumar Deharia 2010
(4) MPHT 18 – referred to.
Indian Bank and Ors. v. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2
SCC 729 : [2020] 1 SCR 408; State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 – referred
to.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v.  ASHISH
AWASTHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 1 SCR 408
referred to
Para 4.1
(2020) 10 SCC 496
referred to
Para 4.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civi

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