Dependents of deceased 'Sthai Karmi' employees are eligible for compassionate appointment consideration under prevailing policies.

The petitioner, Akash Rai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated May 29, 2026, passed by Respondent No. 3.

The impugned order rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was classified as a "Sthai Karmi" (permanent employee) under the State’s 2016 Circular.

The respondents had initially rejected the claim on the grounds that the prevailing policy did not explicitly provide for compassionate appointment for dependents of employees classified as "Sthai Karmi".

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the rejection and a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his case based on judicial precedents.

1. Whether the dependents of a deceased employee classified as a "Sthai Karmi" pursuant to the Circular dated October 7, 2016, are eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment.

2. Whether the status of a "Sthai Karmi" is distinct from that of a "daily rated employee" for the purpose of extending service benefits such as compassionate appointment.

The Court relied on the principles established in Shushan Shelke v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 15385 of 2025) and Ashish Soni v. Rani Durgavti Vishvavidhyalaya (W.P. No. 11742/2021).

Once a daily rated employee is classified as a "Sthai Karmi" under Clause 2 of the Circular dated October 7, 2016, they cease to be daily rated employees and are categorized as Un-skilled/Semi-Skilled/Skilled within a specific pay scale.

There is no legal embargo in the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated September 29, 2014, against considering the dependents of such employees.

The Court observed that both the petitioner and the State’s counsel reached a consensus that the matter was squarely covered by the decision in Shushan Shelke.

Applying the reasoning from Ashish Soni, the Court noted that a "Sthai Karmi" holds a status superior to a daily rated employee due to the formal classification and pay-scale allocation under the 2016 Circular.

The Court reasoned that because the deceased had been regularized into this specific category, the administrative rejection based on a lack of "provision" in the policy was legally unsustainable and "non est".

By treating the "Sthai Karmi" as a distinct, recognized class of employees, the Court bridged the gap between the 2014 Policy and the 2016 Circular to ensure the petitioner's eligibility.

It held that the status of "Sthai Karmi" qualifies a deceased employee's dependents for consideration for compassionate appointment.

The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-consider the petitioner's case afresh in light of the applicable policy and judicial precedents within 90 days of receipt of the certified order.