Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Yadav vs M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran ... on 24 June, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 24th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 7501 of 2014
Between:-
RAKESH YADAV S/O LATE SHRI LAKHAN SINGH
YADAV , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, H. NO. 244/2
(NEW NO. 392), HUKUMCHAND COLONY,
AIRPORT ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKASH SHARMA-ADV0CATE)
AND
1. M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
COM. LTD. CHIEF ENGINEER (INDORE REGION)
POLOGROUND INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
[CIVIL] CITY CIRCLE ,M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANY LTD.
POLOGROUND INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WEST DIVISION,
AGRASEN CHOURAHA,AIRPORT ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MADHUSUDAN DWIVEDI-ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
In the present case filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of compassionate appointment by the Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHA respondents by communication dated 10.10.2001. R KOUSHAL Date: 2022.06.29 The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider 10:35:36 IST 2 his application for compassionate appointment in terms of the circular dated 30.01.1997 issued by the respondents.
Facts of the case are that father of the petitioner Late Lakhan Singh was working as cleaner with the respondents. He was conferred permanent status as cleaner w.e.f. 1.4.1980 by order dated 29.10.1996. He died on 16.12.1998. It is argued that as per existing provisions of circular dated 30.01.1997 the petitioner was entitled for compassionate appointment. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 28.09.1999, however the said application was not promptly considered by the respondents. On 1.09.2000, in view of financial stringency on the Board, a ban was imposed on compassionate appointment and instead of compassionate appointment, Annuity was provided. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 347/2001 which was disposed of by order dated 5.7.2001 giving direction to the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a period of three months and to communicate the outcome to the petitioner. By letter dated 10.10.2001, the respondents informed that in view of financial stringency, a ban on compassionate appointment has been imposed by the Board by circular dated 1.09.2000 and therefore, instead of compassionate appointment, the petitioner has been paid Annuity.
While assailing the aforesaid communication, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ban imposed on compassionate appointment by circular dated 1.9.2000 shall not be applicable in the case of present petitioner in view of the law laid down by the various Courts holding that the rules/circulars prevailing on the date of death of the deceased employee shall be applicable in Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHA R KOUSHAL Date: 2022.06.29 10:35:36 IST the case for consideration of compassionate appointment. In support of his submission, counsel has placed reliance on the order dated 7.05.2022 passed 3 by Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.883/2019 (Nagulal Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others ) and also the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by another Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1760/2018 (Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M.P. Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs. Bharat Parmar and another).
Counsel for the respondents submitted that law relating to right in the case of compassionate appointment has been settled by various judgments reiterating that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The father of the petitioner died on 16.12.1998 in harness. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment but during the pendency of the application, due to financial constraints vide notification dated 1.09.2000 the Board imposed a ban on compassionate appointment and made a provision for grant of benefit of Annuity to the family of the deceased employee which has been granted to the mother of the petitioner. He further submits that death has taken place in the year 1998 and the petitioner and his family has been surviving since then and therefore, no purpose would be served in granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on Division Bench judgment passed in the case of Managing Director M.P. Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company and others Vs. Ashiq Shah and another, 2021(3) MPLJ 532 wherein it has been held that object and purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to provide immediate helping hand to the family in distress to enable it to overcome sudden Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN MUKTA economic crisis because of death of bread winner. Request of compassionate CHANDRASHEKHA R KOUSHAL Date: 2022.06.29 10:35:36 IST appointment and direction thereupon should be reasonable and proximate to 4 time of death of bread winner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court considers it apposite to consider first objection of the respondents regarding issuance of the directions for compassionate appointment at this stage. The father of the petitioner died on 16.12.1998. Application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 8.09.1999. The petitioner and his mother filed Writ Petition No. 347/2001 which was disposed of by order dated 5.07.2001 directing the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter the respondents declined to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of imposition of ban on compassionate appointment by circular dated 1.9.2000. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid denial of compassionate appointment and sought direction for compassionate appointment in the present petition. The claim of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents on merit. It has been simply denied on the basis of a circular dated 1.9.2000 which was issued after the death of deceased employee. In the fact and circumstances of the case, petitioner cannot be denied compassionate appointment on the objection of the respondents of delay. In the case of Nagulal Parmar(supra), the Division Bench of this Court has quashed the rejection order of compassionate appointment of the year 2016. In the said case the employee had died on 22.11.2007. The Division Bench directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the policy prevailing at the time of death of the employee.
Now, adverting to the validity of the communication by which the Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHA R KOUSHAL Date: 2022.06.29 10:35:36 IST petitioner has been declined compassionate appointment on the ground that during the pendency of application for compassionate appointment, due to 5 financial constraints the respondents have issued circular dated 1.09.2000 imposing the ban on compassionate appointment and making a provision of payment of Annuity, in this regard, the law has been settled by the apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157. As per settled proposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.
In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) the very scheme applicable in the present case was under the consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. It that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside."
Recently the Hon'™ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Bank v/s Promila reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 : Writ Appeal No.1760 of 2018 8 (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 312 has considered a similar situation and has held as under:-
" 4 . It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHA R KOUSHAL and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away.
Date: 2022.06.29 10:35:36 IST
20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles 6 applicable to the cases of compassionate employment i.e. succour being provided at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment. If these factors are kept in mind, it would be noticed that the respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant stage of time, as per the norms, to deal with the unfortunate situation which they were faced with. Thus, looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot claim benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee, which could have been considered to be applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539]. It is not for the courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review, as has been recently emphasised by this Court in State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand [State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 621]
21. We may have sympathy with the respondents about the predicament they faced on the demise of Shri Jagdish Raj, but then sympathy alone cannot give remedy to the respondents, more so when the relevant benefits available to the respondents have been granted by the appellant Bank and when Respondent 1, herself, was in employment having monthly income above the benchmark."
The Division Bench of this Court has also directed for consideration of the application for compassionate appointment in terms of the rules/policy Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by prevailing at the time of death of the employee in the case of Nagulal Parmar Vs. SAN MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHA R KOUSHAL Date: 2022.06.29 10:35:36 IST State of Madhya Pradesh and others(supra).
In view of aforesaid, the decision of the respondents denying the 7 compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground of subsequent circular dated 1.09.2000 after the death of the employee is not sustainable and same is quashed.
Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the policy prevailing on the date of death of the employee. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today.
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHA
R KOUSHAL
Date: 2022.06.29
10:35:36 IST