Employment on Regular Pay Scale with Kramonati Benefits Entitles Dependents to Compassionate Appointment.

The petitioner’s father, late Shri Rampal, was appointed as a Peon (Group “D”) on May 18, 1990, on a regular pay scale and was granted 'Kramonati' benefits in 2008 after 12 years of service

Following his death on November 18, 2011, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment. The respondent-State rejected the representation via order dated December 22, 2016 (Annexure P/1), and a subsequent order dated March 23, 2018 (Annexure R/2), classifying the deceased as a daily wager rather than a regular employee

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for appointment and compensation for the delay

1. Whether the deceased employee was a regular employee or a daily wager for the purpose of granting compassionate appointment benefits to his dependents?

2. Whether the impugned orders dated 22.12.2016 and 23.03.2018 were passed in adherence to the principles of natural justice and the material service records?

The court primarily applied the principles of Administrative Law regarding the duty to act fairly and the rule against arbitrariness under Article 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India

a regular pay scale and the grant of 'Kramonati' (time-bound promotion/increment) serve as conclusive evidence of a regularized status, distinguishing such employees from daily wagers who are only entitled to lump-sum ex-gratia payments

Furthermore, the court emphasized the requirement for "reasoned and speaking orders" and the "opportunity of hearing" in administrative adjudications

The court found that the respondents' classification of the deceased as a daily wager was factually incorrect and contrary to the record. It noted that the appointment order dated May 18, 1990, established a regular pay scale and the subsequent grant of 'Kramonati' in 2008 confirmed the deceased's status as a regular employee

The court observed that the respondents failed to deny these specific service records in their written statement. Consequently, the court reasoned that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim was based on a non-application of mind and suffered from arbitrariness, as it ignored the relevant service status and was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing

The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s representation for compassionate appointment afresh, according to the policy prevailing at the time of the father's death, within three months. The respondents were further ordered to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing and pass a reasoned, speaking order