Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Rukmani Bobde, vs Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board on 22 June, 2015
WP-14691-2008
(SMT.RUKMANI BOBDE, Vs MADHYA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD)
22-06-2015
Shri M.Shafiqullah, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prateek Dubey, Advocate for respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this case is finally heard.
It is a case wherein husband of the petitioner holding the post of Attendant Grade-II was died during course of the employment on 31.1.1997. The petitioner being wife of the deceased submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 4-9/4/1997, which remained undecided although the policy dated 30.1.1997 issued by the respondent/Board granting compassionate appointment was in existence. As the decision was not taken, however, the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition No.9546/2008(S), which was disposed of by this Court on 13.8.2008 issuing the following directions:-
âConsidering the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the application filed by the petitioner is yet to be decided on merits in accordance to the policy and circulars of the respondents establishment, interest of justice would be met in case the respondents are directed to take up the application for consideration and decide it within a reasonable time. Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitionerâs filing certified copy of this order alongwith all relevant documents, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take up the application filed by the petitioner for consideration in accordance to the policy and circulars and the Scheme applicable in the respondents establishment for grant of compassionate appointment and decide it by a speaking order within a period of three months thereof and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.
Certified copy as per rules.â Thereafter, the order dated 24.10.2008 was passed vide Annexure P/2,which is assailed in this petition. By the said order, the educational qualification pertaining to eligibility has not been disputed. The existence of policy dated 30.1.1997 has also not been disputed but it is merely said that as per the circular of the Board dated 1.9.2000, the ban for grant of appointment on compassionate ground was imposed due to financial condition of the Board, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get the appointment. It is further said that certain amount has been paid towards gratuity and other heads to the family of the deceased, however, specifying those grounds, the representation was rejected.
The petitioner by filing this petition has interalia contended that the policy, which was in existence on the date of submission of the application for grant of compassionate appointment, deserves consideration as per the judgment of this Court in the case Smt.Anupama alias Sadhna Pawar Versus Chairman, M.P.State Electricity Board & Others (Writ Petition No.6246/2002) decided on 4.8.2003, however, the reason of rejection is unsustainable. It is further said that the ban was imposed on 1.9.2000, however, til imposition of the ban as per the policy referred in the order impugned Annexure P/2 dated 30.1.1997, the petitioner was entitled to get compassionate appointment as per the eligibility, which has not been duly done by the Board. It is also his contention that now the ban has been lifted by the Board by issuing a fresh policy for compassionate appointment in the year 2013 wherein consideration for grant of compassionate appointment was to be made to the employees, who were died with effect from 15.11.2000 meaning thereby if a person died prior to 15.11.2000, consideration is not possible as per new policy. As the policy for grant of compassionate appointment was in existence in the year 1997 itself, therefore, during such period, the appointment ought to be made in terms of the said policy of the Board, which has not been done by the order impugned, therefore, the reason of rejection of application for grant of compassionate appointment is flimsy, arbitrary and illegal.
On the other hand, the respondent/Board has filed reply interalia contending that the petitioner has been extended the benefit of the compassionatary rules ex- gratia, GPF and others the description whereof has been specified. It is further said that the compassionate appointment was granted by the Board to the employees died upto 24.10.1995 and the date of death of the husband of the petitioner was thereafter i.e. on 31.1.1997 and the post was not available on the date of submission of the application by the petitioner, therefore, the order has rightly been passed.
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the facts, which have been mentioned in the order impugned dated 24.10.2008 Annexure P/2 whereby it is clear that the policy dated 30.1.1997 was in existence at the time of death of husband of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the husband of petitioner was died during course of the employment. It is also not in dispute that the ban was imposed by the Board with effect from 1.9.2000. The order passed in another case vide Annexure P/3 has also not been disputed by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the Board has issued a fresh policy wherein consideration of application for compassionate appointment has been made in case of those persons who were died after 15.11.2000 as per the policy dated 9.12.2014. In such circumstances, looking to the return filed by the respondents, it appears that in case of the employees who were died after 24.10.1995, applications for compassionate appointment were not considered. As per the recent policy, the consideration of the applications for compassionate appointment was made to the employees who were died after 15.11.2000. Being undisputed fact that at the time of death of husband of the petitioner and submission of application for compassionate appointment, the policy dated 30.1.1997 was in existence. Under the said policy, petitioner was possessing the educational qualification for Class-III post, however, non-consideration of the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is arbitrary. The reason as assigned in the order impugned to reject the representation after directions of this Court is also without any basis and logic. The ground taken regarding non-availability of the post cannot be acceptable in a case of compassionate appointment in case the employee has died during course of the employment.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed. The order impugned Annexure P/2 dated 24.10.2008 passed by the respondents is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment in view of the foregoing observations and to pass appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
In the facts & circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own costs.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE