Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Kishore Kushwah vs Mp Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd ... on 28 November, 2016
WP-7633-2016
(KAMAL KISHORE KUSHWAH Vs MP MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD &
ANOTHER)
28-11-2016
Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Petitioner has approached this Court against rejection of his
application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on
the premise that he has become overage in terms of the policy of
2016.
Learned counsel contends that father of the petitioner had
died on 16/4/2004, while he was serving as Lineman with the
respondents-Company. Petitioner is one of the heirs left behind
by him. Date of birth of the petitioner is 6/7/1975. Earlier, the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. The same was not considered due to a ban on compassionate appointments. The policy for regulating appointments on compassionate grounds has been brought into existence on 13/4/16. Petitioner applied for the post of Line Paricharak (Class IV post). The age limit for the said post is 23 years. As such, the petitioner was found to be over-age.
Learned counsel further submits that due to ban, petitioner could not apply earlier, therefore, he deserves to be given benefit of age relaxation while his claim is considered for appointment on compassionate grounds as per new policy.
I am afraid such a proposition cannot be accepted in the context of claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. Law regulating appointment on compassionate grounds, by now, is well settled. If an employee dies in harness leaving behind his heirs, in that eventuality, to tide over the financial crisis, the provision of appointment on compassionate ground has been made in different establishments. No one can claim appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right. Likewise, employers are not obliged to have the provision for appointment on compassionate grounds, as it is only one of the dimensions of social welfare measure. If by certain administrative reasons there was a ban, as aforesaid, in the establishment, no exception thereto can be taken and said period, in no way, can yield any benefit to the petitioner in the matter of relaxation of age for more than one reasons. Firstly, there is no provision for age relaxation in the scheme. Petitioner's right to be considered is only as per the scheme in existence at the time of consideration. The scheme having specific age limit between 18 to 23 years and petitioner being about 41 years of age, in the opinion of this Court, no illegality has been committed by the respondents while rejecting the petitioner as over-age. Further, no compliant of non compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can be made in the context of factual matrix in hand to invoke extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE (and)