Compassionate appointment claims must be decided under the policy prevailing on the employee’s death.

The petitioner, Smt. Anjana Sahu, was the elder daughter of Sudarshan Sao, who was employed as a Secretary of Gram Panchayat Palsapani and died in harness on 07 March 2022.

She applied for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 27 February 2015 governing compassionate appointment for dependants of deceased Gram Panchayat Secretaries. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund rejected her application by order dated 10 June 2022, relying on Clause 6(a) of the general policy dated 14 June 2013, on the ground that the deceased employee’s son was already in government service.

The petitioner challenged the rejection and sought reconsideration under the specific policy dated 27 February 2015.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was required to be considered under the specific policy dated 27 February 2015 applicable to dependants of deceased Gram Panchayat Secretaries, rather than under the general policy dated 14 June 2013?

2. Whether the existence of another family member in government service could be relied upon to reject the petitioner’s claim when such disqualification was not contained in the policy dated 27 February 2015 applicable at the relevant time?

Compassionate appointment is not an ordinary mode of recruitment and must be considered strictly in accordance with the policy applicable on the relevant date.

Where a specific policy governs a particular category of employees, the competent authority must apply that policy rather than an unrelated general policy.

The Court further applied the principle that a subsequent amendment or insertion of a disqualifying condition cannot ordinarily be applied retrospectively to defeat a claim governed by the earlier policy.

The Court found that the policy dated 27 February 2015 did not contain a condition disqualifying a dependant merely because another family member was employed in government service; that condition was inserted only subsequently on 03 September 2024.

The rejection order was legally defective because the authority relied on Clause 6(a) of the general policy dated 14 June 2013, despite the existence of a specific policy dated 27 February 2015 governing compassionate appointment for dependants of deceased Gram Panchayat Secretaries.

Since the petitioner’s father was a Gram Panchayat Secretary, her application had to be examined under the specific policy applicable to that category. Further, the ground that the deceased employee’s son was already in government service could not by itself justify rejection because that restriction was absent from the 2015 policy and was introduced only on 03 September 2024.

The authority was therefore required to reconsider the petitioner’s claim under the prevailing 2015 policy.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the policy dated 27 February 2015, by passing a speaking order, preferably within 90 days from receipt of the Court’s order.