Meenakshi Dubey vs Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut ... on 2 March, 2020
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the
petitioner's case was considered at the relevant time on the basis of the Policy
prevalent. It is pointed out that as per Clause 11.1 of the Policy dated
29.09.2014, the dependents of the Work Charged employees were not entitled
for compassionate appointment but entitled for only an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs
in lieu thereof. The petitioner's case was considered and decided by the
committee on 13.07.2016 and an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs was paid to the
petitioner. It is submitted that the said order has attained finality as it was not
challenged any further. The subsequent amendment in the Policy dated
31.08.2016 was not made applicable with retrospective effect. Hence, the same
would not be applicable in the said case. It is further pointed out that the
reliance by the petitioner on the case of Meenakhi (supra) is misconceived, as
the application of the petitioner was rejected as per Clause 11.1 of the relevant
Policy dated 29.09.2014 and not on Clause 2.4.