Compassionate appointment governed by policy prevailing on date of application, not subsequent policies.

The applicant's father, a Mail Agent, EDDA, died in harness on May 29, 2015, leaving his family in financial distress

The applicant sought compassionate appointment, and his case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) in August 2018; however, it was recorded that he needed to apply afresh as his age was less than 18 years, which the applicant contended was factually incorrect as his date of birth was July 18, 1998

Subsequently, respondent no. 3 instructed the applicant's mother to furnish an affidavit stating that the affidavit dated July 25, 2016, be treated as the application date, acknowledging the applicant was 18 years and 7 days old on that date

On July 9, 2019, the applicant was informed his case was not recommended for engagement due to "not fulfilling the basic eligibility criteria circulated by Dte. Letter no. 17-02/2018-GDS dated 08.03.2019"

The applicant had passed the 10th standard in 2013 but failed in Mathematics with 27 marks

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's compassionate appointment based on the policy dated March 8, 2019, was legally sustainable when the date of application was treated as July 25, 2016

2. Whether the policy dated March 8, 2019, which introduced a mandatory requirement of passing marks in Mathematics for 10th standard, could be applied retrospectively to the applicant's case

The court primarily applied the principle that a claim for compassionate appointment must be decided based on the scheme prevalent on the date of the employee's demise, not subsequent policies

This principle was supported by the Supreme Court judgments in *The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Versus Ashish Awasthi*

*Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729*

and *State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496*

Further, it relied on the established service jurisprudence principle that unless a policy specifically provides for retrospective operation, it is to be applied prospectively

The court also considered the prevailing policy for Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) dated January 14, 2015, specifically Section B on Educational Qualification, which mandated a "Secondary School Examination pass certificate of 10th standard" without a specific stipulation for passing marks in Mathematics

The court reasoned that since the respondents themselves acknowledged and treated July 25, 2016, as the effective date of application, the applicant's eligibility for compassionate appointment must be assessed under the policy in force on that date

The policy dated January 14, 2015, which was then current, only required a "Secondary School Examination pass certificate of 10th standard" and did not mandate passing marks in Mathematics as a compulsory subject

The subsequent policy dated March 8, 2019, which introduced the requirement of passing marks in Mathematics, explicitly stated it would apply to "vacancies to be notified on or after the date of issue of this notification" and that "the engagement process initiated before this date shall be finalized as per the existing instructions"

Given that the father died in 2015 and the application date was treated as 2016, the policy of March 2019 could not be applied retrospectively, especially in light of Supreme Court precedents affirming that the policy prevalent at the time of the deceased employee's death should govern compassionate appointments

Applying a subsequent policy to the applicant's prejudice without express retrospective provision was deemed impermissible and rendered the rejection arbitrary and legally unsustainable

It set aside the impugned order dated July 9, 2019, which rejected the applicant's candidature

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy dated January 14, 2015, treating July 25, 2016, as the relevant date of application.

This appointment is subject to the fulfillment of other formalities and the applicant will be entitled to all consequential benefits

This exercise must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the order

No costs were awarded