The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a second rejection of a claim for compassionate appointment. The court held that policy changes are prospective and cannot benefit applications submitted under prior regimes, especially given the long lapse since the death of the father.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19256 of 2012
The father of the petitioner was appointed as a Majdoor on 26.10.1970 in Tenughat Dam Division in the erstwhile
Patna High Court CWJC No.19256 of 2012 (4) dt.27-01-2014
2/4
District of Hazaribag. Sometime in the year 1980, he was designated as Peon but he continued to work in the work charged establishment. He died on 06.06.1996. Thereafter on 21.10.1996, an application was filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Such claim of the petitioner was rejected, as would be evident from Annexure-5, as a daily wager or a person working in the work charged establishment was not entitled to be given the benefit of compassionate appointment. The matter rested at that point of time and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner ever challenged such a decision before the Court of law.
Subsequently, there was a change in the policy relating to compassionate appointment where persons working in the regular establishment, may be from the work charged establishment, would also be entitled for consideration of such benefit. Emboldened by such change in the policy, an application was made afresh seeking appointment on compassionate ground which has again been rejected vide order dated 18.07.2012, contained in Annexure-8.
Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner was brought into the regular establishment and the policy was already in vogue. Therefore, the petitioner must get advantage of such a policy. The reason for rejecting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19256 of 2012 (4) dt.27-01-2014
3/4
claim is illegal and erroneous.
Change in the policy will be prospective in nature. It cannot relate back to the time frame when the earlier decision was taken on the prevalent policy. Compassionate appointment is not a constitutional right of the petitioner. It violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. However, since such a policy is in vogue and has not been held to be ultra vires, the advantage which a person wants to draw will be strictly in terms of the policy.
Case of the petitioner was considered earlier by the authorities and rejected in the year 2003. He cannot get advantage of a subsequent policy of the year 2005 which will be prospective. Even otherwise, death of the father of the petitioner had happened in the year 1996. More than 18 years have gone past. The real object and purpose of providing compassionate employment has been lost by way of simple reason that there was no immediate requirement for reaching out to the family in distress due to loss of earning on account of sudden death of the employee in question. If the family has managed to survive for 18 years, it is expected to survive without adopting extra method of appointment under compassionate head which anyway is not supposed to be a backroom policy of accommodation at any point of time.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19256 of 2012 (4) dt.27-01-2014
4/4
For the above reasons, Annexure-8 is not required to
be interfered with.
Writ is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
Dilip/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority illegally rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment for the second time.
Whether a change in policy for compassionate appointment relates back to earlier applications made under different policy.
Jeevan Ganju
State Of Bihar
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
