Summary
The Court held that the applicable compassionate-appointment claim had to be assessed under the scheme prevailing when the work-charge employee died. That scheme provided monetary compensation, while the later scheme expanding appointment eligibility did not apply to the earlier death. An appointment obtained under the High Court judgment could not be protected once that judgment was set aside. The original monetary benefit remained payable if the claimant had returned it.
Issues
- Whether a later scheme extending compassionate appointment to dependants of work-charge employees applied to an earlier death.
- Whether an appointment made under the impugned judgment should nevertheless be protected.
Held
- At the employee’s death, the 2014 scheme provided Rs.2 lakh compensation rather than compassionate appointment for dependants of work-charge employees paid from the contingency fund. Applying the binding decisions, including one concerning the same scheme, the Court rejected reliance on the later 2016 circular. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 4, 4.1)
- Appointment pursuant to the High Court’s erroneous direction could not survive merely because it had already been made. Setting aside that direction carried the necessary consequences for the consequential appointment. (¶ 4.2)
- The Court directed repayment of the Rs.2 lakh benefit if the claimant had returned the amount earlier received under the 2014 scheme. The connected appeal was allowed for the same reason concerning application of the later scheme. (¶ 5)
Result
State appeals allowed. The Division Bench judgments were set aside and entitlement under the subsequent circular rejected. In the principal appeal, Rs.2 lakh compensation was to be paid again if it had been returned; no costs.