Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2018
W.P. No. 8718/2012
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8718/2012
Ajay Saket
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Namrata Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes/No
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Jabalpur, Dated: 28.06.2018) In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to Clause 12.1 of the Government Circular dated 18.08.2008 and also to the order dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure P-9), whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment as his father was a work charged and contingency paid employee and there is no provision in the policy to consider the dependent of such employee for compassionate appointment. By the impugned order, while rejecting the case of the compassionate appointment, the wife of the deceased employee W.P. No. 8718/2012 2 Smt. Manwati Saket has been directed to be paid ex gratia payment of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case for compassionate appointment has been erroneously rejected. He relied on a circular dated 14.06.1974 to contend that the dependent of an employee working in Work Charged and Contingency Paid Fund will be entitled for compassionate appointment. He referred to Clause 31 of the said Circular dated 14.06.1974 (Annexure P-12). It is further contended by him that the State Government has issued another Circular dated 31.08.2016 (AnnexureP-15) wherein a provision has again been made for grant of compassionate appointment in the case of death of a Work Charged and Contingency Paid employee. It is further submitted by him that the respondents have failed to consider the other facts of the case. The ex gratia payment sanctioned to the wife of the deceased employee has not been withdrawn by the petitioner till today. The said fact has been placed on record vide I.A. No. 7865/2018.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that the father of the petitioner was not a member of regular service and he was working on Work Charged and Contingency Paid Fund at the time of his death. He died on 29.12.2009. The W.P. No. 8718/2012 3 case of the petitioner was considered by the respondents in accordance with the Circular existing at the time of consideration. It is further contended that as per the policy prevailing at the time of consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the dependent of a Work Charged and Contingency Paid employee was not eligible for compassionate appointment. In place of compassionate appointment an ex gratia payment was sanctioned in favour of the wife of the deceased employee in terms of policy. It is further contended that compassionate appointment is not a right and therefore, there is no illegality in the Clause 12.1 of Circular dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P-11) which was existing at the time of consideration of the case of the petitioner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition. The compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The object of compassionate appointment has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC and in the case of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766 held that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Appointment to a W.P. No. 8718/2012 4 public office should be made on the basis of competitive merits. Once it is proved that inspite of death of bread-winner the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interest of several others ignoring the mandate of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of Maharashtra & another Vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia; 2010 (3) MPLJ 213 held that compassionate appointment is not a right. It is a benefit granted de-hors to normal mode of recruitment. It must be construed considered strictly in accordance with the scheme or policy formulated in that behalf. There is no vested right which can be exercised at any time even after the crisis created by death of the earning member is over nor is it a hereditary right, therefore, it can not be bequeathed. The Court further held that the case of compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the policy which is prevailing on the date of consideration and not on the basis of a policy which was in-vogue at the time of death or filing an application for compassionate appointment.
W.P. No. 8718/20125
In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, I do not find any illegality in the policy which does not provide appointment to dependent of Work Charged and Contingency Paid employee.
6. Father of the petitioner has died on 29.12.2009, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order on 15.03.2011 in accordance with the policy prevailing on the date of consideration. The respondents have granted ex gratia payment in accordance with the policy to the dependent/wife of the deceased employee. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. Further, the policy of the year 1974 (Annexure P-12) and the subsequent policy dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure P-15) would not apply to the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Deharia (Supra).
7. Ex-consequenti, In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Amitabh Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN Date: 2018.07.03 21:36:45 -07'00'