2019 (1) TMI 1988 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Rejection Based on Policy, No Res Judicata: Key Points on Compassionate Appointment

Sunil Raghuvanshi Versus State of M.P. and another

The court affirmed that the policy in effect at the time of considering the application for compassionate appointment applies. The petitioner's claim was ... Eligibility for appointment on compassionate ground - Rejection on the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner is already in Government job - Doctrine of prospective overruling - HELD THAT:- The question that whether the policy in existence on the date of death of a Government employee or the policy which is in existence on the date of consideration of the application for compassionate ground would be applicable, is no more res integra. The Full Bench of this Court by judgment passed in the case of THE STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. VERSUS LAXMAN PRASAD RAIKWAR [2018 (10) TMI 1963 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] where it was held that compassionate appointment can not be claimed as a matter of right as it is not a vested right and the policy prevailing at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment would be applicable. This Court had held that since, the policy which was in vogue on the date of the death of the Govt. employee would be applicable, therefore, the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the said policy. However, there was no determination of the right of the petitioner. The petitioner was not declared entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, this Court is of the view that the process for consideration of the application for appointment on compassionate was still in progress and there was no final adjudication of the right of the petitioner, and under this circumstance, the principle of Res Judicata would not apply in the light of non-application of the principle of prospective overruling. This Court is of the considered opinion that although this Court in the first round of litigation might have directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the policy existing on the date of death of the father of the petitioner, but in the light of the subsequent interpretation of law, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Deharia [2009 (10) TMI 987 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT], it is held that the policy which was in existence on the date of consideration of the application would be applicable. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents did not commit any mistake by rejecting the claim of the petitioner by considering the policy which was in vogue on the date of consideration of the application, and the petitioner was rightly held ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground, as his elder brother was already in the Government job - Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the policy for compassionate appointment.2. Principle of res judicata.3. Principle of prospective overruling.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the policy for compassionate appointment:The petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, who was a government employee. The application was initially rejected based on a policy that was in effect at the time of consideration, which stated that if an elder brother of the applicant is already employed in a government job, the applicant is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The petitioner argued that the policy in effect at the time of his father's death should apply, as per an earlier court order. The court noted that the Full Bench had clarified that the policy in effect at the time of consideration of the application is applicable, not the policy at the time of death. Consequently, the respondent's rejection of the petitioner's application based on the policy in effect at the time of consideration was upheld.2. Principle of res judicata:The petitioner contended that the principle of res judicata applied because the court had previously directed that the policy in effect at the time of his father's death should be considered. The court, however, clarified that for res judicata to apply, there must be a final adjudication of rights. In this case, the earlier court order did not determine the petitioner's right to compassionate appointment but merely directed reconsideration under the then-applicable policy. Therefore, the principle of res judicata did not apply as the right of the petitioner was not finally adjudicated.3. Principle of prospective overruling:The court discussed the principle of prospective overruling, which allows a court to declare that a new rule of law will apply only to future cases. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments to emphasize that prospective overruling is generally applied only by the Supreme Court and must be explicitly stated. In this case, the Full Bench's interpretation that the policy at the time of consideration applies was not declared to be prospective. Hence, it was considered to be the law from the inception. The court concluded that the respondents correctly applied the policy in effect at the time of consideration, not the policy at the time of death, and thus, the petitioner's application was rightly rejected.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the policy in effect at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is applicable. The petitioner's claim was rightly rejected as his elder brother was already in a government job, making him ineligible under the applicable policy. The principles of res judicata and prospective overruling did not alter this conclusion.