Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Neema Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2553
1 WP-2660-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2660 of 2025
SMT. NEEMA VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
''7.1 यह क, यािचकाकता माननीय यायालय से यह सहायता चाहती है क, यािचकाकता ारा तुत यािचका केा वीकार करते हुये रे प डट मांक-2 को िनदिशत कया जावे क वह यािचकाकता को एक वष का अित र समय सी.पी.सी.ट . क पर ा उ ीण करने हे तु दे वे।
7.2 यह क, माननीय यायालय यािचकाकता को जो भी उिचत सहायता याय हत म दलाया जाना उिचत समझे दलाये जाने क कृ पा कर।''
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that after death of her husband, she was granted appointment on compassionate ground. In the appointment order, it was mentioned that petitioner will be required to obtain CPCT Score Card within a period of three years. Since petitioner could not obtain the CPCT Score Card, therefore, additional period of one year was granted by order dated 30.04.2024. Now by order dated 09.01.2025, petitioner has been directed to produce the CPCT Score Card, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 07-Feb-25 6:40:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2553 2 WP-2660-2025 failing which, her services will be terminated with effect from 12.01.2025.
3. On a specific query, it was submitted by counsel for petitioner that subsequently petitioner has not been paid her salaries. Thus, it is clear that services of petitioner must have been terminated with effect from 12.01.2025 on the ground of non-submission of CPCT Score Card. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether termination of services of an employee, who was granted appointment on compassionate ground, on the aforesaid ground can be said to be justified or not. Appointment on compassionate ground is on account of death of the bread-winner and it cannot be equated with direct recruitment. Therefore, the criteria for appointment on compassionate ground is completely different from that of the direct recruitment. If respondents have offered a post for which obtaining the CPCT Score Card was necessary then it was voluntary act of the respondents and in case, if petitioner has failed to obtain the CPCT Score Card, then her services should not have been terminated but an option should have been given to her that in case, if she is voluntarily ready to work against a post for which CPCT Score Card is not required, and then the respondent should have considered her case in the light of her undertaking.
4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that no such opportunity was given to petitioner to express her willingness as to whether she is ready to work on a lower post for which CPCT Score Card is not required. It is submitted that in case, if such an option is given, then petitioner is ready to work even on a Class IV post for which CPCT Score Card is not required. It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Shubham Sen Vs. The State Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 07-Feb-25 6:40:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2553 3 WP-2660-2025 of Madhya Pradesh and Others decided on 29.11.2024 in W.P.No.37640/2024 has taken a similar view.
5. Counsel for the State could not point out as to how the services of an employee who was granted appointment on compassionate ground can be terminated without giving an option to serve the department on a lower post.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. This Court in the case of Hiraman Gaikwad Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others decided on 6th November, 2023 passed in WP No. 27996/2023 has held as under :-
"1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 4.9.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development Department/respondent no.2 in file No.Estb./3/VN-234/2022.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was given appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Grade III by order dated 21.6.2019. However, a condition was also imposed that he has to pass Computer Diploma and Proficiency Certificate Test (CPCT) in accordance with clause 6.5 of the Govt. Circular dated 29.9.2014 with the rider that in case if the aforesaid condition is not fulfilled within a period of three years, his services will be terminated.
3. It is submitted that since the petitioner have failed to clear CPCT examination, therefore, by impugned order his services have been brought to an end. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the impugned order should not have been passed by bringing his service to an end but should have proceeded further in accordance with law laid down by this court in the case of Virat Dev Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 31st August, 2023 in W.P.No.16770/2022 and Smt.Pratibha Upadhyaya Vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 21 st September, 2023 in W.P.No.18444 of 2022.
4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that in spite of multiple opportunities, the petitioner could not clear the CPCT examination. It was specifically mentioned in the appointment order that the petitioner is required to pass the CPCT examination and having failed to do so, the respondents were left with no other option but to bring the service of the petitioner to an end.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the zone of consideration was completely Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 07-Feb-25 6:40:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2553 4 WP-2660-2025 different. However, this court can also not ignore the minimum qualifications which are required for efficient working of the employees.
7. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Virat Dev Singh (supra) has held as under :-
"7. However, one thing is clear that it is not a case of direct recruitment but it is a case of appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, only question for consideration is as to whether services of petitioner are liable to be terminated on the ground of non-qualifying CPCT or he can be accommodated against any post which does not require CPCT scored card? Since the reason for appointment of petitioner was compassionate on account of death of his father, therefore, criteria for appointment of petitioner was different. Petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate ground in order to tide over the situation which had arisen on account of untimely death of his father.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that although it was necessary for petitioner to qualify CPCT but having failed to do so, his services may not be terminated. Respondents must consider the case of petitioner from the following angles: (i) If any Class-III cadre post is available for which CPCT score card is not required, then the case of petitioner for his appointment on the said post may be considered. (ii) If no such post in Class-III cadre is available, then the case of petitioner can be considered for Class-IV post.
9. Petitioner shall positively submit his undertaking/consent for his consideration to a different Class-III cadre post for which CPCT score card is not required or for Class-IV post.
10. If the consent is furnished within a period of one month from today, then the decision shall be taken by respondents in this regard within a period of one month thereafter. If the petitioner fails to submit his consent before the competent authority within a period of one month from today, then natural consequence of order dated 12.07.2022 shall follow."
8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the terms and conditions of paragraphs 7 to 10 of judgment passed by this Court in the case of Virat Dev Singh (supra).
9. It is made clear that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on any other post for which CPCT Score Card is not required and the petitioner shall positively submit his undertaking / consent for consideration of his case for any other post whether Class-III or Class-IV.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not considered any post for which the petitioner may be found to be eligible and it is left exclusively to the discretion of the authorities to offer post for which CPCT score card is not necessary.
11. With aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of."
8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of the following observations Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 07-Feb-25 6:40:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2553 5 WP-2660-2025 :-
The petitioner is granted liberty to submit her option as to whether she is ready to work on a lower post (may be a Class IV post for which CPCT Score Card is not required). If such an option is given within a period of 15 days from today, then respondents shall consider her candidature for her appointment on a lower post for which CPCT Score Card is not required.
Let a decision in that regard be taken within a period of one month from the date of submission of the option by petitioner.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AK/-Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 07-Feb-25 6:40:55 PM