Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

No Inherent Right To Compassionate Appointment, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
29 Sep 2020 2:36 PM GMT
No Inherent Right To Compassionate Appointment, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment]
x

There cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court has reiterated in a judgment delivered on Tuesday.A Three Judge bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that the compassionate appointments has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.The court allowed...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

There cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court has reiterated in a judgment delivered on Tuesday.

A Three Judge bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that the compassionate appointments has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.

The court allowed an appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court judgment which had directed it to grant compassionate appointment to the son of an employee, who was working as a Driver in the Tribal Welfare Department. The state, in its appeal, contended that the employee was employed as a work-charged/contingency employee in the Tribal Welfare Department and was thus not entitled to the compassionate appointment as per the existing policy on the date of his demise.

The bench, also comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari observed:

It is trite to say that 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 date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.

The claimant contended that his late father was categorized as a permanent employee on account of having worked for more than 15 years and the consequent regularisation of his service.

While considering this contention, the bench noted the  distinction between a work-charged employee, a permanent employee and a regular employee. In this regard, the bench also referred to Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors.,in which it was held that a 'permanent' classification does not amount to regularisation. "We cannot ....make a conclusion that the status acquired is that of a regular employee upon having achieved the status of a permanent employee in service.", the bench said.

While allowing appeal, the bench took note of subsequent circulars issued and invoked powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to increase the Compassionate grant amount from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-, payable to the claimant.

Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8564 OF 2015
Case name: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  vs. AMIT SHRIVAS
Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari 

 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment






Next Story
Share it