Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramlal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 7th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 7479 of 2022
Between:-
RAMLAL SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI PREMNATH
SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HELPER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUB
DIVISION SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C GHILDIYAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRIKANT
MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF PUBLIC WORKS
D EPARTM EN T MADHYA PRADESH NIRMAN
BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT REWA ZONE DISTRICT REWA M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTM ENT CIRCLE REWA DISTRICT REWA
M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT DIVISION NO. 1 SIDHI DISTRICT
SIDHI M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA VERMA, PL FOR STATE)
T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned senior counsel with Shri Shrikant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushpendra Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was initially given Signature SAN Not Verified compassionate appointment on the post of Helper under the work charged Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE contingency establishment on account of death of his father Shri Premnath Date: 2022.04.11 10:29:55 IST 2 Sharma, who was working as a Driver under the respondent Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Sidhi, Division No.1.
Petitioner's grievance is that at the point of time when petitioner was given appointment as Helper under the the work charged contingency establishment 7 posts of the driver were lying vacant and person who were considered subsequently to the case of the petitioner have been given appointment as driver on compassionate basis.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P (S) No.11795/2004 (Atmaram Tiwari Vs. State of M.P & others) and submits that under similar facts and circumstances a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the authorities of respondent no.1 and 3 therein to take action for granting appointment to the petitioner therein on the post of Driver in accordance with the noting made by the then Sub Divisional Officer within 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Shri Pushpendra Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for State submits that once petitioner had accepted appointment on lower post then he is estopped from raising plea of availability of other vacant posts.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to mitigate hardship caused on account of death of sole bread winner. Petitioner had accepted his appointment as a Helper under the the work charged contingency establishment in the year 1994. Petitioner has not brought on record any document to substantiate his claim that as on 01/08/1994, there were 7 posts of driver available in the the work charged contingency establishment of the respondents. Sole reliance is on the order passed by coordinate Bench.
Perusal of said order reveals that even coordinate Bench has proceeded on assumption that 7 posts were vacant as one Mukesh Kumar Mishra was granted appointment as driver vide order dated 25/05/1995. Coordinate Bench has also dealt with a note of Sub Divisional Officer noting that on 22/09/2004 7 posts of the drivers were lying vacant and name of the petitioner therein namely Atmaram Tiwari 3 was recommended for appointment against the post of Driver. However in the present case no vacant position as on 01/08/1994 is brought on record and therefore case of Atmaram Tiwari is distinguishable on facts. Further there is delay of about 28 years in filing this writ petition and secondly in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh (1994) 6 SCC 560, once petitioner has accepted the appointment on the particular post as has been extended to him on compassionate basis then he is estopped from raising any plea of availability of another post. Thus when merits of the case are examined on all three grounds namely non production of document to show availability of post of driver as on 01/08/1994, delay and laches and also in the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh (supra), petition does not call for any indulgence. Petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE tarun