Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Nangwade vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 15 July, 2014
1
WP No.10227/2011
15.07.2014
Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for State.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 25/7/2011 by which the petitioner's request for
compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the
petitioner's elder brother Shri.Sanjay Kumar Nangvade is already in
employment.
In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father
who was working as Head Constable in the District Excise Office had
died in harness on 8/2/2011. The petitioner had submitted an
application for compassionate appointment on 1/4/2011 and the said
application has been considered and rejected by the concerned
respondents by the impugned order dated 25/7/2011.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the petitioner's elder brother Sanjay Kumar Nangvade is working in CRPF, but the petitioner's family is not getting any support from the elder brother and the said elder brother is living separately, therefore, in terms of the judgments of this Court the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment.
Counsel for State has disputed the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has submitted that in terms of the policy, if one of the family member is employed in the government or the board then the 2 compassionate appointment cannot be granted.
I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
This Court in the matter of Sohan Joshi Vs. State of MP and others reported in 2012(3) MPLJ 543 while considering the policy has held as under:-
"6. Undisputedly a policy is made by the State government prescribing grant of compassionate appointment to the dependant of the deceased Government employee. It is said in the said policy that the dependant of the Government employee would not be entitled to grant of compassionate appointment in case any of the members of the family is in the employment of the Government or Board, Corporation or Council. However, if the said bar is taken into consideration, it would be applicable in case a family member of the deceased Government employee is in the service in the very same State and not if a member of the family is employed elsewhere in other State. This has to be examined in view of the fact that the policy of the compassionate appointment is made with an object to provide financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government employee, which always is put in great financial difficulties because of death of the bread earner of the family. Undisputedly, this fact was brought to the notice of the respondents authorities that the eldest son of the deceased Government employee has separated much before and has obtained an employment in the State of Chhattisgarh.3
Therefore, merely because one of the family member was employed in another State, it was not justified to hold that sufficient financial means were available to the family members of the deceased government employee to live on. This fact was very categorically pleaded that looking to the present financial status, it was very difficult for the family of the deceased employee to pull on. There were three unemployed sons, one major daughter of marriageable age and the widow. This particular aspect has not been examined by the respondents and merely on the prescription of such a condition in the policy of compassionate appointment, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. In fact the respondents were required to examine the claim of the petitioner objectively, taking into account the financial status of the family, the means of income and then only to take a decision. Since this has not been done, it cannot be be said that the case of the petitioner was rightly considered by the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment".
The division bench of this Court also in the matter of State of MP & another Vs. Mehmood Hussain Mansuri reported in 25/6/2014 in WA No.729/2013 has held that whether the brother of the petitioner is living separately and not with the family and other dependents of the deceased employee and they have no financial support from any other source is a relevant consideration while deciding the application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has specifically pleaded before this Court that the brother is 4 living separately and not providing any support to the family of the deceased employee. This aspect needs to be enquired by concerned authority. The impugned order dated 25/7/2011 though takes note of the fact that the petitioner's brother Sanjay Kumar Nangvade is employed in CRPF, but it does not consider the issue relating to the support being provided by the said elder brother to the family of the deceased employee or the fact that the said brother is living separately, which are required to be considered in terms of the above judgments of this Court.
Keeping in view this aspect of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25/7/2011 is set aside with a direction to the concerned respondents to re-consider the petitioner's case in the light of the law settled in the judgments mentioned above. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
c.c as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge VM