Compassionate appointment eligibility is governed by the policy prevalent on the date of the employee's death.

The petitioner’s father, a Peon at the Civil Court, Banka, died in harness on January 8, 2022

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on December 14, 2022

His application was rejected by the District Appointment Committee via Order No. 61/2023 dated April 19, 2023, on the grounds that the number of compassionate appointees already exceeded the prescribed ceiling

The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that the 2022 Recruitment Rules (effective April 19, 2022) should apply, which calculate vacancies based on year-on-year occurrences rather than total sanctioned strength

1. Whether the compassionate appointment claim should be governed by the policy prevalent on the date of the employee's death or the rules enacted subsequently?

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application was legally sustainable based on the applicable vacancy caps?

The Court applied the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412, which mandates that a claim for compassionate appointment must be considered under the scheme/policy prevalent on the date of the death of the employee

It also relied on the administrative policy communicated via High Court letter dated January 10, 2017, which capped compassionate appointments at 5% of the total sanctioned strength of the relevant cadre

The Court determined that since the petitioner’s father died on January 8, 2022, the "2022 Rules" (notified later on April 19, 2022) were inapplicable; instead, the 2017 policy governed the case

Under the 2017 policy, compassionate appointments are restricted to 5% of the total sanctioned strength of the cadre

The Court observed that for the Peon cadre in Banka, the sanctioned strength was 88, meaning the 5% cap allowed for only 5 posts

Since 11 persons were already working on compassionate grounds in that cadre, the quota was already exhausted

The Court concluded that the respondents correctly identified that no vacancy existed under the applicable regulatory framework

The Court answered the issues by affirming that the policy at the time of death is the sole criterion for eligibility. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioner