Compassionate Appointment in Bihar: Supreme Court Defines Eligibility for Regular Pay Scale

The case of Mukesh & Another vs. State of Bihar & Others revolves around the issue of compassionate appointments for dependents of government employees who died while in service. The Supreme Court had to decide whether such appointees were entitled to regular pay scales or if they could be appointed on a fixed-pay basis under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006.

The appellants in this case were children of deceased government employees who applied for Class III government posts based on Bihar’s compassionate appointment policies. Some of them were recommended for regular positions, but instead, they were appointed as Prakhand Teachers, Panchayat Shikshaks, or Nagar Shikshaks on fixed pay. The Supreme Court had to determine whether these appointments violated their rights and whether the 2006 Rules should apply retrospectively.

Background of the Case

The appellants were appointed under Bihar’s compassionate appointment scheme, which provides employment opportunities to dependents of government employees who die in harness. The issue arose when:

Some appellants were recommended for Class III posts, but were instead placed in teaching positions on fixed pay.
They filed writ petitions seeking regularization in Class III or Class IV posts.
The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in their favor, directing the government to grant them either Class III/Class IV posts or regular pay scales.
The Bihar government appealed, and a Division Bench reversed the decision, denying the claim for regular pay.
The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court had to address the following legal questions:

Were the appellants entitled to regular Class III or Class IV posts?
Should the 2006 Rules apply retrospectively to appointments made before their enforcement?
Did the appellants’ situation match the precedent set in Vishwanath Pandey v. State of Bihar (2013)?

Arguments by the Petitioners (Appellants)

The appellants, represented by their counsel, argued:

They were entitled to Class III government jobs as per the original compassionate appointment scheme.
Their placement in teaching positions with fixed pay was illegal and unjust.
They were similarly placed as Vishwanath Pandey, whose case was decided in his favor.
Appointments before July 1, 2006 should not be governed by the 2006 Rules.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Bihar)

The Bihar government, represented by its counsel, countered:

Compassionate appointments are not a right but a policy-based privilege.
Appointments made after July 1, 2006 must comply with the 2006 Rules, which allow only fixed-pay appointments for teachers.
Unlike Vishwanath Pandey, most appellants were appointed after the 2006 Rules came into force.
The High Court correctly applied the new rules to post-2006 appointments.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, delivered a detailed judgment. The Court ruled:

The 2006 Rules cannot be applied retrospectively to appointments made before July 1, 2006.
Appellants recommended for Class III or Class IV posts before July 1, 2006 are entitled to regular pay scales.
Those appointed after July 1, 2006 fall under the 2006 Rules and can only be given fixed-pay appointments.
Like Vishwanath Pandey, appellants appointed before the cutoff date should be given regular pay.
Appellants appointed after 2006 can approach the government for relief but cannot claim regular pay as a matter of right.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

The Supreme Court emphasized:

“Compassionate appointments are not a vested right but a policy-driven privilege. Those appointed before July 1, 2006, should not be disadvantaged by rules that did not exist at the time of their appointment.”

Regarding the retrospective application of the 2006 Rules, the Court held:

“The Division Bench of the High Court erred in applying the 2006 Rules to appointments made before their enforcement. The policy at the time of appointment should govern the employment terms.”

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling protects those appointed under the older rules from arbitrary changes in employment terms.
It reaffirms that policy changes cannot have retrospective effects unless explicitly stated.
The decision provides clarity on the scope of compassionate appointments in Bihar.
It upholds the precedent set in Vishwanath Pandey, ensuring equal treatment for similar cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mukesh & Another vs. State of Bihar provides a crucial interpretation of compassionate appointments and their legal framework. By distinguishing between pre-2006 and post-2006 appointees, the Court ensured fairness while upholding the intent of the 2006 Rules. The ruling serves as a significant precedent for similar cases in India, reinforcing the principle that government policies cannot be applied retroactively to the detriment of employees.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mukesh & Another vs State of Bihar & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-04-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category