Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs Public Health Engineering Department on 9 July, 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 WP No.27143/18
WP No.27143/2018
(Sunil Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Indore, Dated : 9.7.2019
Shri Mohd. Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Heard finally with consent.
By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.7.2018 as also 6.8.2018, whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
The undisputed facts are that the petitioner's father was working as Driver in the work charged and contingency establishment and had died on 30.3.2016. The petitioner had filed an application for compassionate appointment on 2.9.2016 and the same was rejected on 20.9.2016 placing reliance upon the earlier policy dated 29.9.2014 and also taking the stand that the subsequent policy circular dated 31.8.2016 does not apply in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the same by the Writ Petition No.327/2017 and this Court vide order dated 23.6.2017 had allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the subsequent circular dated 31.8.2016. The respondents had passed the order dated 5.7.2018 again rejecting the petitioner's case on the ground that on the date of death of the petitioner's father the policy dated 29.9.2014 was applicable, therefore, the subsequent policy dated 31.8.2016 will not apply to the petitioner's case. The petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No.327/2018 and the said contempt petition was disposed off by order dated 14.7.2018. Thereafter the respondents have passed the fresh order dated 6.8.2018 again reiterating that the Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 16/07/2019 17:47:00 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WP No.27143/18 petitioner is not entitled for consideration of the claim in terms of the subsequent policy circular dated 31.8.2016.
The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the policy prevalent on the date of consideration of the application will apply, hence the petitioner's case is required to be considered in the light of the circular dated 31.8.2016 and this issue has already been concluded by the earlier orders, whereas the stand of the respondents is that the policy which was prevalent on the date of death of the petitioner's father will apply.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that this controversy in respect of applicability of the policy in the case of the petitioner has already been settled by this Court by order dated 23.6.2017 passed in WP No.327/2017, wherein this Court after considering the entire position had set aside the earlier order with a direction to the respondents as under:-
"In light of the above, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent/s to re-consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the subsequent circular dated 31/8/2016. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
In the contempt petition also the issue was considered and this Court vide order dated 14.7.2018 had disposed off the contempt petition No.327/2018 by directing as under:-
"Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
The respondents have filed a reply and they have not considered the case of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 31/8/2016.
Learned counsel has fairly stated before this Court that two months' time be granted to reconsider Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 16/07/2019 17:47:00 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 WP No.27143/18 the case of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 31/8/2016.
In light of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents, present contempt petition stands disposed of and the exercise of reconsidering the case of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 31/8/2016 be positively done within two months from today."
Having regard to the aforesaid clear direction of this Court, it was not open to the respondents to reject the petitioner's application on the ground that the policy circular dated 31/8/2016 is not applicable. Even otherwise the issue has been decided by the Full Bench in the matter of The State of M.P. and others Vs. Laxman Prasad Raikwar reported in 2018(3) JLJ 654 wherein it has been clearly laid down that the policy prevailing at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment would be applicable. It is clear in the present case that the policy circular dated 31.8.2016 was prevailing on the date of consideration of application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 5.7.2018 and 6.8.2018 cannot survive and are hereby set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the policy circular dated 31.8.2016 within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Having regard to the fact that inspite of the earlier direction of this Court the petitioner's application has been rejected by the respondents on the unsustainable ground of applicability of policy circular dated 29.9.2014 and the petitioner has been unnecessarily required to approach this Court twice Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 16/07/2019 17:47:00 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 WP No.27143/18 earlier, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the appropriate cost in the present case.
Hence, the writ petition is accordingly allowed with cost of Rs.20,000/-.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok/-
Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 16/07/2019 17:47:00