Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sohan Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2012
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION No.18273/2011 (S)
Sohan Joshi
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & others
____________________________________________________________
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate, for
respondents-State.
____________________________________________________________
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi
____________________________________________________________
O R D E R
(18/07/2012) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner claiming a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh for grant of compassionate appointment, after quashment of the orders dated 05.08.2010 and 22.03.2011.
2. It is contended that the father of the petitioner was working as Head Constable (Driver) in the 6th Battalion S.A.F., Jabalpur, who died while in service on 28.06.2010. On account of death of the bread earner of the family, the entire family came to the stage of starvation. The application was made by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment but the same was rejected on the ground that the eldest brother of the petitioner is in the employment of Government of Chhattisgarh and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for employment on compassionate ground. Since the eldest brother of the petitioner was not maintaining the family, as he was employed in the other State, the mother of the petitioner made request for grant of compassionate appointment so 2 that remaining family of the deceased employee could be maintained. In fact the family, which was living with the deceased employee was consisting of three sons, one daughter and the wife. It is contended in the petition that though affidavits to the effect were filed but instead of considering the same, again the representation was rejected by subsequent order dated 22.03.2011, therefore, this writ petition was required to be filed.
3. On service of the notice of the writ petition, a response has been filed by the respondents and it is contended that in terms of the policy of compassionate appointment, which was in vogue at the relevant time, the claim of the petitioner was examined. The fact remains that on the date of death, the policy of the year 2008 was in vogue. There is a specific provision made in the policy that in case any of the members of the family of deceased is in the employment in Government departments or any Board, Mandal or any Council, the dependant of the deceased employee would not be entitled to grant of compassionate appointment. It is stated in the return that since the eldest brother of the petitioner, by name Mohan Joshi, is posted as Constable (Driver) in the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner was not found fit to be granted compassionate appointment and accordingly the claim made by the petitioner was rightly rejected. The representation submitted by the mother of the petitioner was also rejected in view of the aforesaid reasons. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any compassionate appointment.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder rebutting the statements made in the return. He has pointed out that this fact that the eldest brother of the petitioner was in the employment of State of Chhattisgarh, was brought to the notice of the respondents by the mother 3 of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the affidavits so sworn by the said persons were produced. Even in the application the fact was mentioned that the eldest son of the mother of the petitioner was not in a position to look after the family of the deceased Government employee as he was having a very low salary in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is further pointed out that these aspects were never considered that the eldest brother of the petitioner was not in the employment of the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, the bar as imposed could not have been made applicable nor the petitioner could have been denied the compassionate appointment.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and examined the records.
6. Undisputedly a policy is made by the State Government prescribing grant of compassionate appointment to the dependant of the deceased Government employee. It is said in the said policy that the dependant of the Government employee would not be entitled to grant of compassionate appointment in case any of the members of the family is in the employment of the Government or Board, Corporation or Council. However, if the said bar is taken into consideration, it would be applicable in case a family member of the deceased Government employee is in the service in the very same State and not if a member of the family is employed elsewhere in other State. This has to be examined in view of the fact that the policy of the compassionate appointment is made with an object to provide financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government employee, which always is put in great financial difficulties because of death of the bread earner of the family. Undisputedly, this fact was brought to the notice of the respondents authorities that the eldest son of the deceased Government employee has separated much 4 before and has obtained an employment in the State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, merely because one of the family member was employed in another State, it was not justified to hold that sufficient financial means were available to the family members of the deceased Government employee to live on. This fact was very categorically pleaded that looking to the present financial status, it was very difficult for the family of the deceased employee to pull on. There were three unemployed sons, one major daughter of marriageable age and the widow. This particular aspect has not been examined by the respondents and merely on the prescription of such a condition in the policy of compassionate appointment, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. In fact the respondents were required to examine the claim of the petitioner objectively, taking into account the financial status of the family, the means of income and then only to take a decision. Since this has not been done, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner was rightly considered by the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment.
7. Though the settled law is that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right but the facts in the present case are quite different. Here the bread earner serving in the Special Armed Forces had died untimely. His death has caused loss of source of livelihood to the family members, who were living with him. If the policy of compassionate appointment is required to be made, it is only for this purpose and object, therefore, the case of the petitioner is required to be re-considered by the department.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 05.08.2010 and 22.03.2011 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of 5 compassionate appointment ignoring the fact relating to the employment of the eldest brother of the petitioner in the State of Chhattisgarh and if the respondents come to the conclusion that financial status of the family of the petitioner is not such that they can live on, the respondents will make appropriate arrangement for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
9. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to cost.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc