Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajbala Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 3 January, 2014
1
Writ Petition No. 8385/2013 (S)
3.1.2014
Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Chourasiya, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is
finally heard.
Communication dated 30.3.2012 entered into between
Collector, Harda and the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest
Division Harda, is the cause of grievance to the petitioner,
which has led her to file this writ petition.
Vide said communication, the Collector while
acknowledging the priority right of the petitioner, widow of the
deceased government servant, for appointment on
compassionate ground, has put a clog to file an affidavit by the
son that in case the petitioner is given the appointment on
compassionate ground he will not claim for his appointment.
Contention of the petitioner is that the precondition
imposed by the Collector hampers her right for consideration.
Facts giving rise to controversy briefly are that, husband
of the petitioner Shailendra Kumar Verma, employed as Assistant Conservator of Forest, died in harness on 8.4.2009. While alive, he had married one Manju Verma. Out of said wedlock, a son, viz., Dharmendra (respondent No. 4) was born. Manju Verma died in 1995. Whereafter, petitioner got married in 1995 and from the said wedlock two children, viz., Mohini and Ankur were born. That, husband of the petitioner died on 8.4.2009 and thereafter on 2.5.2009 Ankur also died leaving 2 behind the petitioner, daughter Mohini and respondent No. 4, son born of first marriage. That, at the time of death, respondent No. 4 was 14 years of age. That, the family pension has been settled in favour of the petitioner, her daughter Mohini and respondent No. 4, step son of the petitioner.
Petitioner applied on 27.7.2011 for appointment on compassionate ground; whereon, a communication was entered into by the official respondent with respondent No. 4, whereby, his consent was sought. That, on receiving the affidavit and the claim for his own appointment on compassionate ground by respondent No. 4, the matter was referred to Collector, Harda for his verdict, which resulted in the impugned communication under question.
While questioning the impugned communication on the anvil of clause 2.1 of the policy of compassionate appointment circulated vide Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Finance Order No. 9/C/34/1/3/06 dated 18.8.2008, which stipulates the priority right of the widow for appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner seeks direction to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to grant the petitioner appointment on compassionate ground without insisting on the petitioner to seek N.O.C from respondent No. 4.
Respondents on their turn have opposed the relief sought. It is urged on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that in case of number of persons eligible for appointment on compassionate ground being more than 1, clause 2.4 of the policy in vogue stipulates that, though the preference be given to the widow, however, with a prior consent of other family 3 members. It is urged that impugned communication being in consonance with the policy cannot be faulted with.
Respondent No. 4 on his turn has also opposed the relief sought in the petition. It is urged that, he has an equal right for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further urged that on 20.4.2009, when respondent No. 4 had filed an application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner had specifically given her no objection, therefore, now she cannot turn around from such an undertaking. It is contended that the Authorities concerned were well justified in their approach as would warrant an interference.
Considered the rival submissions.
Trite it is, that the policy for appointment on compassionate ground aims at providing a succor to the bereaved family whose sole bread earner, on whom they were dependent has suddenly expired. Thus, an appointee on compassionate ground takes place of the sole bread earner to prevent the dependents to fall into penury.
In the case at hand as borne out from the facts on record that, three dependents, i.e., petitioner, daughter Mohini and step son, respondent No. 4 exists after the death of Shailendra Kumar Verma. It appears that with passage of time there is a rift between the petitioner and her step son; therefore, despite of her giving a consent in the year 2009, petitioner herself applied for appointment on compassionate ground. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the policy for compassionate appointment does create a priority right in favour of the widow; therefore, the respondents are not justified in directing the petitioner for filing the affidavit by respondent No. 4, the step 4 son of not claiming the appointment on compassionate ground in case the petitioner is given the appointment. However, in view of the fact that even respondent No. 4 was equally dependent on his father when he died in harness, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would be within their right in seeking a declaration from the petitioner that, in case she is given the appointment she will lookafter respondent No. 4, as his father would have looked after till he is employed. The respondents would also be within their right in putting a condition in the appointment order that in case the petitioner deviates from her liability, the privilege will be withdrawn.
In view of above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of the death of her husband without insisting on the affidavit of respondent No. 4; however, the respondents in case appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground would be at liberty to take an undertaking as observed above.
Let the decision be taken within three months. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi