Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Singh Bamnia vs The State Of M.P. on 17 August, 2015
W.P.No.223/2008
20.08.2015
Parties through their counsel.
The petitioner before this court has filed this present
petition claiming compassionate appointment. This is the
second visit of the petitioner. Earlier also the petitioner
has approached this court claiming compassionate
appointment.
The petitioner's contention is that his father was a
Government Servant and expired on 06/09/2005 and his
case has been rejected by the respondents on the ground
that his brother is serving the State Government as a Driver.
It has been argued before this court that the brother of the petitioner is living separately since 1996 and he is having his own family and therefore, keeping in view the policy dated 20/08/2001 as the employed brother was not dependent, the respondents should have ignored the factum of employment of the brother and should have considered the case of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank & Anr vs. M. Mahesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No. 260/2008 decided on 15/05/2015 and his contention is that the policy in vogue has to be looked into while considering the case for grant of compassionate appointment.
He has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Narendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. and others and his contention is that in the aforesaid case in similar circumstances this court has remanded the matter back to the authorities and therefore, the present matter also deserves to be remanded back.
This court in the case of Narendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No. 1062/2008(s) decided on 05/01/2010 in paragraph 3,4 & 5 has held as under:-
3. The respondents have filed reply and have stated that in view of the fact that the petitioner's brother was already in employment of the State Government, the petitioner has rightly been denied the compassionate appointment keeping in view the conditions mentioned in the Circular dated 22.01.2007.
4. After considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents, I find that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected observing that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground that younger son of the deceased employee is already in Government service and as such the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. While rejecting the petitioner's application the petitioner's contentions which he has raised in this petition has not been taken note of by the authority that since his brother (younger son of the deceased) was residing separately and was not dependent on the deceased Govt. Servant he would not come within the expression "family" and as such the bar contained in the policy dated 21/02/2007 would not get attracted.
5. To my mind, the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner for the first time in this petition is required to be considered at the first instance by the competent authority of the respondents. In the first instance by the competent authority of the respondents. In the circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of this petition directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's grievance in the light of the judgment dated 17.07.2007 passed by this Court in the case of Ku. Priyanka Dixit Vs. State of M.P. and others as also in the case of Haryana Public Service Commission Vs. Harinder Singh (AIR 1999 S.C. 551) and the circular dated 20/08/2001 on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner. Let the matter be re-examined by the second respondent keeping in view the affidavits Annexure P/3 and P/4 filed alongwith this petition and appropriate decision be taken in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, uninfluenced by the earlier rejection order as also the stand taken in the return.
Resultantly, in light of the aforesaid judgment, the order dated 17/08/2007 and letter dated 20/08/2007 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, keeping in view the affidavit and the ration card filed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure P/3 and P/4.
The respondents shall take a fresh decision in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order uninfluenced by earlier rejection order and also uninfluenced by the stand taken in return.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.C. Sharma) Judge Karuna