Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanju Kumar Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 18 November, 2013
1
Writ Petition No. 19687/2013
18.11.2013
Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for
State of M.P. on advance notice.
Order dated 4.7.2013 has been assailed by the
petitioner whereby, petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment in lieu of death of his father has been
turned down.
Father of the petitioner employed as Peon in the office
of commercial Tax Officer, Chindwara died in harness on
27.2.2010. An application filed by the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected
by order dated 18.11.2010. The decision was communicated
to him on his representation dated 14.12.2010, vide
communication dated 5.1.2011. Petitioner assailed the order
vide Writ Petition No. 2774/2012.
Taking into consideration the submission by the
petitioner, the petition was disposed of on 11.1.2013 in the
following terms:-
"The impugned orders dated 5.1.2011
(Annexure P-7) and 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-
9) are cryptic and suffer from vice of no non-
application of mind. The fact that younger
brother of the petitioner has been residing
separately and was not providing any
financial assistance to the family, has not
been considered by the competent authority
while passing the impugned order. Clause 4.1
of the policy has to be read in the context of
law laid down by Supreme Court in Govind
Prakash Verma (supra). For the
aforementioned reasons, the impugned orders
2
are hereby quashed. The competent authority
is directed to reconsider the application
submitted by the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment in the light of the
observations made in this order. Needless to
state, the competent authority while deciding
the application submitted by the petitioner
shall pass a speaking order. The aforesaid
exercise shall be carried out by the competent
authority expeditiously preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order."
That, an enquiry was conducted by the Commercial
Tax Officer, Chindwara who by communication dated
14.5.2013 recommended for the appointment of the
petitioner as Peon and forwarded the same to Divisional
Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Chindwara Division
for appropriate action. The said proposal alongwith the
current vacancy position was further forwarded to the
Commissioner, Commercial Tax Indore, informing that
against 37 post of Peon, 12 post of process server, (i.e. total
49 sanctioned post) 57 peons and process servers were
working.
It appears from record that the Commissioner, vide
Communication 27/2013/30/5-v/ukS/496 dated 27.6.2013,
called upon the Divisional Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Tax, Chindwara, to take decision, in pursuance
whereof the impugned order dated 4.7.2013 came to
be passed.
The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on two
grounds, viz., that he does not possess the minimum
qualification of Class 8 pass and that his brother is already in
3
Government Service.
The petitioner though urged that the brother in service
lives separately is of no help to the family.
The Competent Authority, however, found that at
initial stage of filing application for appointment, the
petitioner had disclosed that his brother lives with the
family. However, it was later the petitioner has filed the
affidavit stating that the employed brother lived separately.
Obviously, being a constable in the Central Reserve
Protection Force the petitioner's brother is bound to be
posted away from the parental house, the same itself cannot
be indicative that the employed son has separated him.
There is a tendency in the rise that to seek appointment on
Compassionate ground various pleas have been taken
including, in case where any of the member of family in
Government Service, that he has separated himself from the
mother. This fact will not be a mitigating factor and rightly
did not weigh with the Competent Authority, who declined to
toe with the opinion by the Commercial Tax Officer who did
not take these aspects into consideration.
The appointment on a compassionate ground is not a
mode of recruitment but a device to salvage the family of
deceased Government Servant from instant financial penury.
Whereas, in the case at hand out of two sens viz., petitioner
and Sudhir Kumar, one (Sudhir Kumar) is already in service.
Therefore, the respondent is well justified in rejecting the
application. Rather it is also the policy of the State Government, as borne out from the impugned order that, in case if one of the family member is in Government Service, 4 then the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be accorded to other family member (Clause 4.1 of the Circular No. C/3-4/1/3/06/Bhopal dated 18.8.2008).
In view whereof, no interference is caused. In the result petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE VKV/-