Initial appointment under special recruitment drive to regular establishment cannot be arbitrarily treated as contingency-funded appointment.

The petitioner’s husband was appointed on 23.03.1992 through a special recruitment drive for SC/ST categories.

His appointment was later confirmed on 13.12.1995 on a two-year probation period.

A subsequent order dated 27.12.1997 indicated that his salary was being drawn from contingency funds.

Following the employee's death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment.

Respondent No. 2 rejected the request on 20.01.2009 via Annexure P/1, stating that dependents of employees paid from contingency funds are ineligible for compassionate appointment under the prevailing policy and are only entitled to a lump sum ex-gratia payment.

The petitioner challenged this rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution, asserting that the initial appointment was in a regular establishment.

1. Whether the deceased employee’s initial appointment was against a post in a regular establishment or a contingency/work-charged establishment.

2. Whether the subsequent payment of salary from contingency funds alters the nature of an initially regular appointment for the purpose of granting compassionate appointment.

Clause 2.1 (referenced as Clause 12.1 in the impugned order) of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 22.01.2007 issued by the Department of General Administration, Madhya Pradesh, which stipulates that dependents of work-charged or contingency-paid employees are ineligible for compassionate appointment but are entitled to a "Gratuity-cum-Compassionate" lump sum grant of one lakh rupees.

The court assessed the legal distinction between regular recruitment drives and contingency fund appointments.

The Court observed that the initial appointment orders (Annexure P/6 and P/2) lacked any stipulation regarding contingency funds and appeared to be regular appointments following a special recruitment drive.

The Court reasoned that the respondents failed to consider the nature of the initial induction before classifying the deceased as a contingency employee based solely on subsequent salary vouchers (Annexure P/8).

It was held that the respondents were "duty-bound" to determine if a regular appointee's status could be downgraded to contingency-paid for the purpose of benefits.

Because the impugned order did not address these key contradictions between the initial recruitment status and the later payment method, the administrative decision was found to be lacking proper consideration.

The respondents were directed to re-examine the petitioner’s application within 60 days, specifically determining (a) the nature of the husband’s initial appointment, (b) whether it was a regular appointment via a special drive, and (c) the impact of subsequent salary payments from contingency funds.

The Court ordered that if the petitioner is found entitled to the appointment, it shall be granted effective from 20.01.2009 with all consequential benefits except back wages.