Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dugesh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1 WP No.12801/2021
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
WP No.12801/2021
Durgesh Rathore Vs. State of MP & Ors.
Indore, Dated:08.11.2021
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aditya Garg, learned GA for the respondents/State.
Heard on admission.
ORDER
The petitioner has prayed for a direction to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's father died in harness on 18/6/1998. After becoming major, petitioner preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment. Since till 2013 there was no provision for grant of compassionate appointment or in other words, the compassionate appointment benefits were suspended, the petitioner filed appropriate application in 2014 when policy of compassionate appointment was restored. The respondents have not decided the same till date. Hence, a mandamus be issued for considering the pending application of petitioner.
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner at length.
4. The petitioner's father died way back on 18/6/1998. Petitioner is aged about 29 years at present. There is no explanation of delay from 2014 till the time present writ petition is filed. The petition is filed with a declaration that 'there is no delay in filing the present writ petition'.
5. The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to provide an immediate helping hand to the family in distress. After more than 20 years from the date of death of petitioner's father if direction is issued to grant compassionate appointment or 2 WP No.12801/2021 consideration, it will frustrate the very purpose of compassionate appointment. The division bench of this Court in WA No.10/2020 decided on 7.6.2021 in the matter of Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. & Ors Vs. Ashq Shah & another has taken note of legal journey in cases of delay in seeking compassionate appointment. It is apt to quote the relevant portion:-
"[6] This is trite that compassionate appointment is carved out as exception to the general rule. The two well recognized contingencies for grant of compassionate appointment are - (i) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of death of the bread winner while in service; (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread winner. (See (2008) 13 SCC 730 V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of U.P.).
[7] Reference may be made to (1998) 2 SCC 412 (State of U.P. Vs. Paras Nath) wherein after taking note of previous judgment reported in (1995) 6 SCC 476 (Union of India Vs. Bhagwansingh), the Apex Court opined as under:-
State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath (1998) 2 SCC 412
"6.We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh [(1995) 6 SCC 476:
1996 SCC (L&S) 33: (1995) 31 ATC 736]. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. This Court observed:
"The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family."
7. No such considerations would normally operate seventeen years after the death of the government servant. The High Court was, therefore, not right in granting any relief to the respondents."
3 WP No.12801/2021(emphasis supplied) [8] Similarly, in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P.(2009) 6 SCC 481, the Apex Court poignantly held as under:-
Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481 "12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service."
(emphasis supplied) [9] It is trite that the basic purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate helping hand to the family in distress. The appointment cannot be directed to be given after more than two decades. There cannot be a reservation of vacancy till a candidate becomes major after number of years. In (2000) 7 SCC 192 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), the Apex Court opined as under:-
"3... This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."
(emphasis supplied) 4 WP No.12801/2021 A Division Bench of this Court took same view in 2003(1) MPLJ 342 [Beni Lal Bamney Vs. Union of India and others] and 2005(4) MPLJ 575 (Riazuddin Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others].
[10] By passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed consideration of respondent No.1 on compassionate ground after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of respondent No.1. In view of principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we are unable to countenance the order of learned writ court. No directions could have been issued for consideration on compassionate ground after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of respondent No.1. The very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment will be defeated if claims of compassionate appointment after decades are entertained."
6. The petition suffers from delay and latches as well as a wrong declaration that there is no delay in filing the petition. For these cumulative reasons, admission is declined. Petition is dismissed.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge vm Digitally signed by VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2021.11.08 16:08:08 -08'00'