Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashavnee Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 401 of 2022
Between:-
ASHAVNEE KUMAR PANDEY S/O LATE
SHRI HRIDAYNARAYAN PANDEY, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O JAY COLONY
GORTARA, DIST. SHAHDOL (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RAJNEESH GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1 STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHAHDOL,
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.)
.......RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIVEK SHARMA - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
...................................................................................................
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.7639 of 2022, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the son of the deceased. He is residing with his mother. He is unemployed. However, his brother is 2 working outside the State. After the death of his father, he filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. By placing reliance on Clause 4.1 of the Policy of the respondents dated 29.09.2014, the claim was rejected. It was rejected on the ground that one of the sons of the deceased is already in Government service in the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore, the questions of penury and dependency are not available for the petitioner to claim so. The same is questioned by the petitioner by filing this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the findings recorded in the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in W.P.S. No.2728 of 2017 (Smt. Sulochana Netam vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) that in case it is found that the petitioner is not getting financial help from her father- in-law and he is living separately, the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment should be considered favourably. Reliance is also placed on the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.07.2012 passed in W.P. No.18273 of 2011 (S) in the case of Sohan Joshi vs. State of M.P. and others) with reference to para 6, wherein it is indicated that even though the eldest son of the deceased Government employee had separated much before the death of the deceased, the financial status of the family, the means of income etc. had to be taken into consideration while considering the application for compassionate appointment. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed and the respondents be directed to accord compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
4. The same is disputed by the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents. He contends that the question raised by the petitioner is since covered by the judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (3) M.P.L.J. 88 in the case of Prajesh Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and 3 others. That the very question raised by the petitioner was considered by the learned Division Bench of this Court, who held that when an employment is held by one of the sons of the deceased then no other person in the family is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsels.
6. The question raised for consideration by the petitioner is that in a case where one of the sons of the deceased even though in Government service but residing separately in different State and is not supporting the family, whether the same can constitute a ground to deny appointment on compassionate grounds. The very question came up for consideration in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court vide para 8. The same reads thus:-
"8. The issue which crops up for consideration is whether Clause 4.1 of the Policy dated 18-8-2008 would entitle a member of the family of Government servant, who dies in harness, for appointment on compassionate ground, if another member of deceased Government servant is in Government service, but not residing with the family."
7. In answering the said question, the learned Division Bench disagreed with the findings recorded by the orders of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ku. Priyanka Dixit vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P. No.3250 of 2006 (S) on 17.07.2007 and Prakash Parmar vs. Government of M.P. reported in 2012 (4) M.P.L.J. 539 and ultimately held in para 32 as follows:-
"32. We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the interpretation given to Clause 4.1 of the Policy for compassionate appointment in Ku. Priyanka Dixit vs. State of M.P., Writ Petition No.3250 of 2006 (S) decided on 4 17.7.2007 and Prakash Parmar vs. Government of M.P., 2012(4) M.P.L.J. 539 and hold that where in a family of deceased Government servant, any of the member eligible for compassionate appointment is in the employment in government service or corporation, board, council, commission etc., any other member of the family, though eligible, will not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground."
8. In the instant case also one of the sons of the deceased is admittedly working in a Government service in the State of Chhattisgarh. The question that arose was whether such a man is deemed to be residing with the family or not. The Division Bench having held to the effect that the person residing outside is deemed to be residing with the family, he cannot be excluded from the class as mentioned in Clause 4.1 of the policy. On this ground the claim was rejected. In view of the very question being answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prajesh Shrivastava (supra), we do not find any good ground to take a different view. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Prajesh Shrivastava (supra) and do not propose to take a contrary view to the same.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
S/
Digitally signed by SACHIN CHAUDHARY
Date: 2022.05.02 19:54:00 +05'30'