Mukesh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Background
The appellants were children of Government employees in Bihar who had died while in service and had applied for compassionate appointment to Class III government posts under the applicable instructions. Although the competent authority recommended some of them for Class III posts, they were instead actually appointed as fixed-pay Prakhand Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, and when they went to court seeking regular Class III/IV posts or regular pay scales, the High Court's Division Bench ruled against them, reversing an earlier favourable judgment. They appealed to the Supreme Court, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision (Vishwanath Pandey) that had granted similar relief to a similarly situated person.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is not a method of general recruitment but a means of giving urgent relief to a bereaved family, and that dependents have no absolute legal right to such appointment: it depends entirely on the governing instructions and rules in force at the relevant time. The Court drew a key distinction based on timing: those appellants who had been recommended for Class III or IV posts before the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules, 2006 came into force on 1 July 2006 were entitled to be appointed to those posts on a regular basis (or given a regular pay scale), following the precedent in Vishwanath Pandey, because the new Rules did not yet govern their appointments. However, appellants recommended or appointed after 1 July 2006 were bound by the 2006 Rules, which only permit fixed-pay appointments for such compassionate posts, and so they were not entitled to regular pay scales, though they were given liberty to approach the State Government separately for relief. The Court directed implementation accordingly and disposed of all the connected appeals on this basis.
Lesson Learnt
Whether a compassionate appointee is entitled to a regular post or only a fixed-pay post can depend entirely on which set of rules was in force on the date they were recommended or appointed: a change in governing regulations can produce different outcomes for otherwise similarly situated people depending purely on timing.