Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 July, 2010
05.07.2010.
Shri Praveen Verma for the petitioner.
Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer, for the respondents.
Challenging the order-dated 4.11.2003 - Annexure P/10, by which claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Petitioner's father Late Shankar Dayal Khare was working as a First Grade Clerk in the Excise Department. He died in harness on 17.5.94, as is evident from the death certificate - Annexure P/1. On the date when his father died petitioner was a minor and, therefore, he could not seek compassionate appointment. When he attained majority after five years, in the year 1999, he submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. The application was forwarded by the Excise Officer vide Annexure P/2. Petitioner was considered for compassionate appointment, initially for appointment on the post of constable. However, as he failed in the fitness test, he was found unfit for appointment as Constable. Documents in this regard are Annexures P/3 and P/4. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner for appointment to any other suitable post was forwarded to the Collector, Tikamgarh vide Annexure P/5, on 15.12.99. The Collector informed that as there is no vacancy, appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner. The communication in this regard is Annexure P/6 dated 30.12.99 (shown as 1.12.99). Challenging the aforesaid act, petitioner preferred an application before the State Administrative Tribunal being O.A.No.1702/2001 and according to the petitioner this application was rejected on 26.5.2001. Challenging the order of 2 rejection by the Tribunal a writ petition was filed before this Court being W.P.No.3290/2001 and vide order-dated 6.8.2003 - Annexure P/7, a Division Bench of this Court directed for considering the case of the petitioner alongwith other cases as directed in W.P.No.3713/2002 (Sharad Gupta Vs. State of MP and others) - Annexure P/8. When the case of the petitioner was not considered and when the same was rejected by the impugned order, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
By the impugned order, claim of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that his mother is already a government employee working in the Health Department, as a Lady Health Visitor and, therefore, as per the policy of the State Government when a member of the family is already in government employment, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to any other member of the family.
Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that when a Division Bench of this Court on 6.7.2003 vide Annexure P/7, had directed for considering the case of the petitioner alongwith other cases, like that of Sharad Gupta (supra), and extend the same benefit to the petitioner, then rejection of the claim it is argued is unsustainable. Contending that claim of the petitioner is rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner, learned counsel prays for interference into the matter.
Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for the State, submits that as per the scheme applicable, petitioner's case was considered and as he was not eligible for appointment for the reasons indicated in Annexure P/10 i.e.... his mother being already in employment as a 3 government servant, it is stated by Shri Shroti that now no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, Shri Shroti prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that now no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. It is a settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of appointment, it is a benefit conferred to a person by virtue of a special scheme or policy formulated by the Government, which is dehors the statutory rules of recruitment. Benefit is conferred to mitigate the hardships faced by a family, due to death of the bread winner. The law is settled in this regard and normally when a member of the family is in employment or after inordinate delay, compassionate appointment is not granted.
If the case in hand is evaluated in the backdrop of the principle governing grant of compassionate appointment, it would be clear that petitioner's father expired in the year 1994 and it was only after five years that petitioner sought for appointment. Initially even though his case was considered for appointment as constable, it was found that he does not meet the physical standards prescribed for appointment as constable in the department. His case was considered and rejected and when there was no vacancy, the claim was again rejected. Thereafter, when he approached this Court a Division Bench directed for considering his case in the light of the directions issued in the case of Sharad Gupta (supra) and in case he is found eligible to consider his claim.
4In the case of Sharad Gupta (supra), the question of appointment on compassionate basis in case another dependent is not granted appointment, was not taken note of. That was a case where the applications filed after 3-5 years of attaining majority were rejected and the Court directed for considering those cases in the light of the fact that the policy permitted a dependent to seek compassionate appointment even if he was a minor, on attaining majority, but the application should be submitted within five years from the demise of the employee. It was found that even this Clause was deleted in the circular and, therefore, the directions issued were to consider the case and not to reject it on the ground of the claimant being minor at the time of death of the employee.
The aforesaid factual aspect of the matter is not applicable in the present case. In the present case, case of the petitioner is not rejected on the ground that he did not file the application within five years of the death of his father. In the present case, case of the petitioner is evaluated as per the policies and circulars of the State Government and it is found that his mother is a government employee working in the health department and, therefore, the policy prohibits appointment of such a person. The petitioner is only entitled to consideration of his case as per the policy and once the case is considered and rejected as not in accordance to the policy, a writ court cannot grant appointment on compassionate appointment ignoring the requirement of the policy and the scheme governing compassionate appointment. In the present case, petitioner's mother is already a government employee and, therefore, it cannot be said that the family of the petitioner is facing 5 hardship due to death of the bread winner. The wife of the deceased being a government employee, working in the Health Department, I am of the considered view that respondents have not committed any error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, as he is not entitled to any benefit in accordance to the scheme and the policy.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the claim made by the petitioner warranting interference, the petition is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-