Mithilesh Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2024

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mithilesh Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2024

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                    1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                     ON THE 19 th OF JANUARY, 2024
                    WRIT PETITION No. 31612 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
MITHILESH TRIPATHI S/O LATE ROHINI PRASAD
TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED RAIYAA BIRSINGHPUR DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.K. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
      REVENUE GOVT. OF MP VALLABH BHAWAN,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE      PRINCIPAL    SECRETARY BHOPAL
      MANTRALAYA GOVT OF MP VALLABH BHAWAN
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    THE CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER BHOPAL
      RAJASVA BHAWAN ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    THE     COLLECTOR S A T N A COLLECTORATE
      PREMISES SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUNEET SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the order dated 11.10.2021 2 (Annexure-P/9) whereby the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by respondent No.2. He submits that the petitioner's claim has been rejected on the ground that his father late Shri Rohini Prasad Tiwari was working on the post of Process Server which was not a regular post and since his services could not be regularized, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted compassionate appointment. He submits that though the case of petitioner's father for regularizing his services to the post of Peon was under the zone of consideration but in the meantime, he expired, therefore, his case for regularizing his services could not be finalized. He further submits that the other similarly situated persons have been given appointment, but petitioner has been denied the compassionate appointment saying that since the services rendered by his father were not regularized, therefore he could not be given compassionate appointment. He submits that under the circumstances existing in the case, the petitioner's case should be considered by the authority for grant of compassionate appointment because it is not his fault that despite having all eligibility, the services of his father could not be regularized.

2. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and taking note of the policy of the State Government vis-a-viz the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that only on the basis of eventualities, the claim of compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Though the petitioner's father being a temporary employee was working on the post of Process Server, but his services could not be regularized on the post of Peon and, therefore, in absence of any provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of temporary employee, if claim of compassionate appointment has been rejected, then nothing wrong has been committed in the same by the respondents and under such circumstances, no 3 interference in the impugned order is called for.

3. The petition being sans merit, is hereby dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE dm DEVASHISH MISHRA 2024.01.19 18:47:44 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court