Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudesh Pal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W. P. No.10164/2018
(Sudesh Pal Singh v. State of M. P.)
Jabalpur, 07.05.2018
Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sourabh Shrivastava, learned Government
Advocate for the respondent State.
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claims following relief-
"The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide/grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, in place of his late father Shri Adesh Kumar Singh, in the light of policy dated 18.08.2008, in the interest of justice."
Grievance of the petitioner is that his father died in 11.03.2007 in harness from the post of Peon in the office of respondent No.3. The petitioner who is presently aged 27 years preferred an application vide Annexure P/5 for compassionate appointment on 08.04.2013. It is submitted by the petitioner that the said application continues to be pending.
In the aforesaid factual background relief is sought for direction to the respondents to consider the said application for compassionate appointment and grant of the same if the same is due under the policy.
The record indicate that prior to 13.01.2011 when Annexure P/6 was issued the policy as regards compassionate appointment was to the effect that no claim for compassionate appointment would be entertained after elapse of seven years from the date of death of the concerned government servant.
2THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W. P. No.10164/2018 (Sudesh Pal Singh v. State of M. P.) The said bar was relaxed vide Executive Instructions dated 13.01.2013 Annexure P/6 to the effect that matters where death took place after 03.01.2011 the bar of 7 years for making an application was relaxed provided the application is made latest by 31.12.2011.
In the present case the petitioner's father died on 11.03.2007, which was much prior to 31.12.2011. Moreso, the petitioner has preferred the application for compassionate appointment as late as 08.04.2013 which is also after the last date for making application under the relaxed criteria vide Annexure P/6.
The learned counsel submits that no application could be made by the petitioner earlier since he was minor and the moment he became major the application was preferred. The affidavit in the petition shows the petitioner is presently 27 years of age and when the application was made he must have been 22 or 23 years of age and therefore the contention of petitioner being minor has no water to hold.
The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE Loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 2018.05.08 05:30:48 -07'00'