Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neha Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 W.P.No.9315/2022
(Neha Sharma Vs. State of M.P.& Ors.)
Gwalior Bench:
Dated 22/04/2022
Shri R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Devendra Chaubey, learned GA for the
respondents/State.
Heard.
Petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 23/08/2021 passed by respondent may kindly be set aside.
7.2 That, the respondent further may kindly be directed to prove compassionate appointment to the petitioner anywhere for the post of assistant grade (iii) or any other suitable post including class IV post with in a stipulated period of three months.
7.3 That, any other relief doing justice into the matter including cost of petition, advocate fee etc. may also kindly be awarded to the petitioer."
Petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment because of death of her father during harness on 13/2/2015. Father of petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Teacher at Government Higher Secondary School, Jiwaji Rao Lashkar, Gwalior at the time of death in respondent-Employment Officer, Shivpuri.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that her father died in harness on 13/2/2015 and thereafter in year on 14/12/2017, she applied for compassionate appointment;
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 W.P.No.9315/2022 (Neha Sharma Vs. State of M.P.& Ors.) however, her claim turned down by respondents vide order dated 23/08/2021 (Annexure P/5).
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in light of existing policy / circular of State Government dated 29/9/2014, she was entitled for compassionate appointment, therefore, respondents erred in rejecting her claim. He relied upon decision of Larger Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.A.No. 756/2019 (Meenakshi Dubey Vs. MPPKVV Company Limited and Ors.; wherein, while answering the reference, Larger Bench has held that so far clause 2.2 of the Policy of State Government dated 29/9/2014 depriving the married daughter to claim compassionate appointment is concerned, is violation of Article 14,16 and 39(a) of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer and submits that at the time of death of deceased employee, brother of petitioner Vikas was also adult and could have applied for compassionate appointment. Petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment in year 2017 in the month of December whereas her marriage was solemnized in the month of June, 2017 and therefore in light of policy on which petitioner is relying itself, petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment as married daughter is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Further, neither there is any plausible explanation as to why brother of petitioner did not apply nor the delay of two and half years has been explained as to why petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment after four and half years of death of her father, that too after her marriage.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 W.P.No.9315/2022 (Neha Sharma Vs. State of M.P.& Ors.) Heard.
It is a case where employee died on 13/2/2015 and application for compassionate appointment was filed by petitioner in year 2017. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ashish Awasthi (Civil Appeal No. 6903/2021 decided on 18/11/2021 ) and in the case of The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) and Ors. Vs. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (Cr.A. No. 7752/2021 decided on 16/12/2021) has held that policy prevailing at the time of death of employee shall govern the conditions of appointment on compassionate ground and not otherwise. Relevant paragraph of decision of Apex Court in the matter of Ashish Awasthi (supra) reads as under:-
"In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered."
Therefore, there is no cavil of doubt about the fact that policy / circular dated 29/9/2014 will be applicable in the case of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 W.P.No.9315/2022 (Neha Sharma Vs. State of M.P.& Ors.) petitioner but petitioner is married daughter of deceased employee and as per policy clause 2 itself a married daughter of deceased employee is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Relevant extracts of Clause 2 of policy / circular dated 29/9/2014 reads as under:-
** 2-vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds fy, vkfJr lnL; ls rkRi;Z ¼ dzekuqlkj ½ 2-1 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh iRuh] vFkok iw.kZr% vkfJr ifr A 2-2 e`rd 'kkldh; lssod ds vkfJr ifr @iRuh }kjk ;ksX;rk u j[kus vFkok Lo;a vuqdaik fu;qfDr u ysuk pkgs rks mlds }kjk ukekafdr iq= ;k vfookfgr iq=h A 2-3 ,slh fo/kok ;k rykd'kqnk iq=h] tks fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le; ml ij iw.kZr% vkfJr gksdj mlds lkFk jg jgh gks vFkok mijksDr ik= lnL; u gksus dh fLFkfr esa fo/kok iq=o/kq tks 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le; ml ij iw.kZr% vkfJr gksdj muds lkFk jg jgh gks A 2-4 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh larku flQZ iq=h @iq=h;ka gksa vkSj og fookfgr gks rks fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr @iRuh }kjk ukekafd; fookfgr iq=h A ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr@iRuh thfor gksus ij gh fookfgr i`=h dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxh A ¼ ,slh vuqdaik fu;qfDr ikus okyh iq=h dks 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr @iRuh ds ikyu&iks"k.k dh ftEesnkjh dk 'kiFk i= nsuk gksxk ½** So far as decision of Larger Bench of this Court in the matter of Meenakshi Dubey (supra) is concerned, in the same decision as regard Clause 2.4 of the Policy dated 29/9/2014, it has been held that "We find no reason to declare Clause 2.4 of the policy as ultra vires. To this extent, we overrule the judgment of Indore Bench in the case of Meenakshi Dubey(Supra)."
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 W.P.No.9315/2022 (Neha Sharma Vs. State of M.P.& Ors.) Clause 2.4 of the Policy entitles a married daughter to seek compassionate appointment in case if the deceased employee is having only either sons or daughters, that to, if he/she is nominated by dependent wife / husband of deceased employee.
In the present case, petitioner while relying upon the decision of Larger Bench int eh case of Meenakshi Dubey (supra) has not produced any documents or even pleading in the case that she has been nominated by her mother (wife of deceased employee) to claim compassionate appointment. As such on this count, her claim to seek compassionate appointment lacks merits. Thus, the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Meenakshi Dubey (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Further, there is no explanation as to why brother of petitioner not applied for grant of compassionate appointment and after delay for two and half years why petitioner has applied for grant of compassionate appointment, whereas, at the time of death of her father, she was major and could have applied for compassionate appointment as the main object to grant compassionate appointment is to give immediate relief to the family in distress especially financial distress, because if any earning family member goes then it is catastrophic to the whole family and therefore, to give immediate relief to an affected family, concept of compassionate appointment is devised which otherwise de hors the equal treatment before the law. Even otherwise,it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This aspect has been taken care of by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfield Limited through its Chairman and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 W.P.No.9315/2022 (Neha Sharma Vs. State of M.P.& Ors.) Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Smt Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 299, wherein Apex Court has deprecated the practice of giving compassionate appointment after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
Further Division Bench of this Court at Indore vide order dated 7/6/2021 in W.A.No. 10/2020 (Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaram Company & Ors. Vs. Ashiq Shah & Anr.) has held that with the passage of time, the financial distress pales into oblivion and therefore, after such delay, aspirant cannot get compassionate appointment.
Considering the legal position and the fact situation, it appears that petitioner is not entitled for any benefit regarding compassionate appointment.
Resultantly, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-
JAI PRAKASH Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb0 SOLANKI 5b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB2193780D8357, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F60 9F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2022.04.28 17:02:49 +05'30'