The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi
Background
Ashish Awasthi's father, a government employee working on a "work charge" basis, died in October 2015. Under the policy then in force, Awasthi was given a compensatory payment but was not immediately eligible for a compassionate appointment. A later circular issued in 2016 extended compassionate appointment eligibility to such work-charge employees' families, and when the State rejected his claim as governed by the earlier policy, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Division Bench directed the State to reconsider his case under the new, more favourable 2016 circular. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, along with a connected appeal involving a similarly situated claimant, Baalendu Yadav.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be assessed under the policy that was in force on the date of the employee's death, not a policy introduced afterward. Since the father died before the 2016 circular came into effect, the High Court's direction to apply that circular retrospectively was incorrect. The Court allowed the State's appeal (and the connected appeal concerning Baalendu Yadav for the same reasons), quashed the High Court's judgments, and ruled that any appointment already made on the basis of the quashed judgment could not stand, while permitting repayment arrangements for the compensation already given.
Lesson Learnt
A family's right to a government job on compassionate grounds is generally fixed by the scheme in force on the date of the employee's death: a more generous policy introduced later cannot be applied retrospectively to revive a claim that didn't exist at that time.