A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the legal contours of compassionate appointment in the context of work-charged and contingency-paid employees under the service jurisprudence of Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the dependent of a deceased employee, who had attained the status of a permanent employee under the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, could be treated as a regular government servant for the purpose of compassionate appointment. The Court scrutinised the distinction between work-charged, permanent, and regular employees, and reaffirmed that compassionate appointment is not an inherent or vested right but a policy-driven exception meant to provide immediate succour. The ruling clarifies that acquisition of permanency for pensionary benefits does not result in regularisation of service. The Court disapproved the High Court’s approach which had conflated permanency with regular status. While denying compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to enhance the compassionate grant from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-, in light of subsequent policy amendments, thereby balancing strict legal interpretation with equitable relief.

Keywords:
Compassionate appointment, Work-charged employee, Permanent employee, Regular employee, Article 142, Service law

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The judgment arose from a prolonged dispute concerning entitlement to compassionate appointment following the death of a government employee who served under a work-charged establishment. The controversy reflects recurring tensions in Indian service law between humanitarian considerations and rigid policy frameworks governing public employment. The deceased employee had rendered service for over two decades and had attained the status of a permanent employee under pension rules, thereby becoming eligible for pensionary benefits. However, his salary continued to be drawn from the work-charged/contingency fund, a factor which assumed central importance in determining eligibility for compassionate appointment.

The State of Madhya Pradesh had framed a compassionate appointment policy dated 18.08.2008, which expressly excluded dependents of employees paid from work-charged or contingency funds, while granting them a one-time compassionate grant. The High Court, however, took a liberal view by holding that once permanency was achieved under pension rules, the embargo under the policy ceased to apply. This interpretation blurred the doctrinal distinction between permanent and regular employment.

The Supreme Court was thus required to correct the legal position, harmonise service classifications, and ensure consistency with settled precedents. The judgment is significant as it reiterates that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed dehors the policy applicable on the date of death, and that benevolent considerations cannot override statutory distinctions deliberately maintained in service jurisprudence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent’s father was appointed as a Driver in the Tribal Welfare Department, Madhya Pradesh on 6 June 1984 as a work-charged employee. His engagement was linked to specific departmental work, and his remuneration was paid from the work-charged/contingency fund. On 12 March 1987, he was conferred the status of a permanent employee under the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, after completing the requisite period of service.

During his tenure, he was granted pay revisions and krammonati benefits. He continued in service until his death on 11 December 2009. Upon his demise, he left behind his widow, one son, and three daughters. The family was financially dependent on him, and a Pension Payment Order was issued under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Pension Rules, 1976.

The respondent applied for compassionate appointment. The request was rejected by the competent authority on 19 August 2010 citing Clause 12.1 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 18.08.2008, which barred compassionate appointment for employees drawing salary from work-charged or contingency funds. Instead, a compassionate grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- was sanctioned to the widow.

Aggrieved, the respondent approached the High Court. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that permanency under pension rules rendered Clause 12.1 inapplicable. The Division Bench affirmed this view. The State challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a work-charged employee attaining the status of a permanent employee under pension rules becomes a regular government servant for the purpose of compassionate appointment?

ii. Whether Clause 12.1 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 18.08.2008 excludes the respondent from compassionate appointment?

iii. Whether compassionate appointment can be claimed as a vested right independent of the policy prevailing on the date of death?

iv. Whether subsequent policy amendments can be applied retrospectively to confer compassionate appointment?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the deceased employee remained a work-charged employee throughout his service, as his salary was paid from the contingency fund. They argued that permanency under pension rules was limited to pensionary benefits and did not result in regularisation. Reliance was placed on Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965, to emphasise that only regular appointees qualify as government servants for service benefits such as compassionate appointment.

It was further contended that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a concession governed strictly by policy. Since Clause 12.1 expressly excluded such employees, the grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- fully satisfied the State’s obligation. The High Court, it was argued, committed a jurisdictional error by rewriting the policy.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent submitted that the deceased had completed over 15 years of service and was classified as a permanent employee under Rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules, 1979. It was argued that permanency implied absorption into regular service, particularly when pay-scale benefits and krammonati were granted.

The respondent relied on earlier High Court decisions where similar employees were granted compassionate appointment. It was further urged that denial of employment defeated the very object of compassionate appointment, especially considering the financial hardship faced by the family.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgments. The Court held that compassionate appointment must strictly conform to the policy in force on the date of death. It reiterated that no inherent or fundamental right exists to claim such appointment.

The Court carefully analysed the distinction between work-charged, permanent, and regular employees. It relied upon Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray to reaffirm that permanent classification does not amount to regularisation. The Court observed that the High Court had erroneously conflated permanency with regular status.

The Court further held that subsequent circulars dated 29.09.2014 and 31.08.2016 could not be applied retrospectively. However, invoking Article 142, the Court enhanced the compassionate grant to Rs. 2,00,000/-, balancing equity with legality.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment is that attainment of permanent status under pension rules does not confer regular status, and compassionate appointment cannot be claimed contrary to the policy applicable on the date of death. The Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointment is an exception, not an entitlement, and must be strictly construed.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that compassionate appointment loses its relevance when substantial time has elapsed since the employee’s death, as the objective is immediate relief. It also cautioned against perpetuating illegality under the guise of equality.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Compassionate appointment must be decided strictly under the policy prevailing on the date of death.
ii. Permanency under pension rules does not imply regularisation.
iii. Subsequent policy amendments cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated.
iv. Article 142 may be invoked only to balance equity, not to create rights.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces doctrinal clarity in service jurisprudence by preserving the distinction between permanent and regular employment. It prevents dilution of compassionate appointment policies through judicial overreach while still ensuring equitable relief through constitutional powers. The decision serves as a binding precedent on the limited scope of compassionate appointment and underscores the primacy of policy discipline in public employment.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, [2012] 7 SCR 1072
ii. Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray, [2016] 9 SCR 141
iii. Indian Bank v. Promila, [2020] 1 SCR 408
iv. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Nirval Singh, [2019] 7 SCR 905

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India
ii. Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965
iii. Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979