SC Rules Circulars on Monetary Compensation, Compassionate Appointments Not Retrospective; Scheme Only for Government Servants

The SC set aside the HC's judgment, ruling that the circulars regarding monetary compensation and compassionate appointments could not be applied retrospectively. The SC emphasized that the scheme for compassionate appointments was intended only for government servants and must adhere to constitutional provisions ensuring equal opportunity. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's request for a compassionate appointment was denied, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and/or application of two circulars dated 21.9.1987 and 9.8.2000.
2. Grant of monetary compensation and/or appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. Retrospective application of circulars.
4. Eligibility criteria for compassionate appointments.
5. Adherence to constitutional provisions in public employment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation and/or Application of Two Circulars:
The case revolves around the interpretation and application of two circulars dated 21.9.1987 and 9.8.2000. The first circular pertains to monetary compensation for victims of terrorist/virulent/communal confrontations, while the second circular addresses the appointment on compassionate grounds for dependents of those killed in such incidents.

2. Grant of Monetary Compensation and/or Appointment on Compassionate Grounds:
The State of Bihar had a policy to grant monetary compensation to victims of terrorist/virulent/communal confrontations, providing ex-gratia payments to the dependents of deceased persons and those with permanent disabilities or serious injuries. The circular dated 9.8.2000 extended this policy to include appointments on compassionate grounds for dependents of those killed in such incidents. However, the respondent's father, who was not a government servant, was killed by extremists on 19.5.2000, and the respondent sought compassionate appointment based on these circulars.

3. Retrospective Application of Circulars:
The respondent's request for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, and later by the District Compassion Committee, on the grounds that the circular dated 9.8.2000 did not have retrospective effect. The High Court opined that the circulars issued by the State of Jharkhand should cover cases within five years from the date of death, including the respondent's case. However, the Supreme Court held that the circulars could not be applied retrospectively, emphasizing that the circular dated 7.5.2003 was prospective and applicable only to deaths occurring after the formation of the State of Jharkhand on 15.10.2000.

4. Eligibility Criteria for Compassionate Appointments:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the scheme for compassionate appointments was primarily for government servants. The Court reiterated that public employment must adhere to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, ensuring equal opportunity for all eligible candidates. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general rule and must be strictly construed, only applicable in compelling circumstances such as the death of the sole breadwinner.

5. Adherence to Constitutional Provisions in Public Employment:
The Supreme Court underscored that any policy decision for compassionate appointments must comply with the constitutional scheme and rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Court cited precedents to emphasize that a benevolent circular cannot be extended beyond its intended scope. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in applying the circulars retrospectively and extending benefits to cases not covered by the original circulars.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the circulars could not be applied retrospectively and that the scheme for compassionate appointments was intended only for government servants. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's request for compassionate appointment was denied. There was no order as to costs.

---