CRPF | Govt Order Extending Compassionate Employment By Curing Defects In Earlier Order Applies Retrospectively: Kerala High Court

A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that the government did not issue the order to introduce a new claim, but only to cure the defects in the earlier order. 

“The present order can only be treated as curing the defects existed in the earlier order by including the category of personnel, who are having same status of a Defense Personnel. It is not a new claim being endorsed by the Government, rather, it recognizes the equal treatment with other Defense Personnel. In that view of the matter also, we can easily conclude that this Government Order is only curing a defect of an existing order issued as early as in 2002. “

The Court thus granted relief of compassionate employment to the son of a CRPF personnel. 

Background Facts

In 2002, the Government of Kerala introduced a scheme to offer employment assistance in the State Service to the dependents of Defense Personnel and GREF/BSF Personnel through an order dated 29.04.2002. However, this benefit was not initially extended to the dependents of Personnel in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and it seemed to align with a Central Government Scheme.

Subsequently, on 06.08.2004, the Centre decided to extend these benefits to the dependents of personnel in various security forces, including the CRPF. Nevertheless, the Government of Kerala did not amend its scheme to align with the Central Government's decision.

The respondent is the son of a late CRPF Constable who was killed in an encounter in Jammu and Kashmir on 19.02.1999 when the respondent was only two years old. Upon attaining majority, he sought employment assistance under the Compassionate Employment Scheme from the State Government. However, his request was rejected in 2015, stating that the scheme did not apply to CRPF personnel.

The respondent accordingly approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which directed the Government to consider including CRPF personnel in the scheme. The government rejected this request, leading him to file a fresh application in 2018. The Tribunal rejected his claim, stating that no such scheme existed for CRPF dependents.

The respondent thus appealed to the High Court, and the Court directed the government to consider including CRPF personnel in the scheme, in line with the Central Government's decision. The government issued an order dated 07.06.2019, incorporating CRPF into the Compassionate Employment Scheme. However, the respondent's request was rejected on 28.10.2020, with the government citing that the order only had prospective effect.

Aggrieved by this, he approached the Tribunal again, which ruled in his favour, emphasizing that the delay in implementing the scheme should not prevent him from claiming compassionate employment. The State appealed this decision.

The government argued that compassionate employment claims could only be made prospectively, and the scheme intended to provide benefits only to dependents of personnel who died after the scheme's implementation. They contended that the respondent's claim was stale since his father died in 1999.

Findings:

The Court ruled that compassionate employment acknowledges an existing right, and if a Government Order recognizes such a right existing before the order's issuance, the claim cannot be rejected. It held that there should not be two classes of personnel for compassionate employment based on the date of the Government Order, as it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Court further noted that the CRPF personnel were in a similar category to Defense Personnel, and the government's order was rectifying a defect in the earlier order issued in 2002. Thus, the order should operate retrospectively to provide the benefits of compassionate employment, regardless of the date of the personnel's death. The Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the case.

It was also found that the respondent had approached the government and the Tribunal promptly upon reaching adulthood, and there were no indications that his family's financial circumstances had improved since his father's death. His date of birth was "04.03.1996," and he could not have made the claim earlier.

“In view of the facts that Sri.Abhidev could not have raised the claim for compassionate appointment earlier as he was a minor at the time of death and he claimed it immediately after he became a major, the Government could not have denied his claim for compassionate employment. We find no scope for interference. Accordingly, the OP(KAT) is dismissed in limine.”

With these observations, the Court upheld the order of the Tribunal granting the benefit of compassionate appointment to the son.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Senior Government Pleader Saigi Jacob Palatty

Counsel for the respondents: Advocates B Renjith Kumar and Clara Sherin Francis

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 549

Case title: State of Kerala & Others v. Abhidev

Case number: OP(KAT) No. 134 of 2023

Click Here To Download/Read the Judgment