Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 September, 2020
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 WP-7449-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-7449-2017
(RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-09-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Navtej Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Tanvi Khare, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent Nos.1 to
4/State.
Shri Pankaj Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved an application i.e. I.A. No.10431/2019 for final disposal of the case in view of the order passed in W.P. No.19388/2012 (Ku. Neha Sharma V. State of M.P. and others).
Since the pleadings are complete and the respondents are ready to argue the case finally, therefore, the matter is heard finally.
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the claim of the present petitioner for granting compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the elder son of the deceased, namely, late Ram Khilawan Jaiswal since already working in government service, the provisions of the policy for granting compassionate appointment prevailing, does not permit the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground.
The petitioner has claimed that his father was working on the post of Branch Manager Kusmi, District Sidhi, died in harness on 01.11.2015, and after his death, with the consent of other family members, an application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been moved on 05.01.2016. The claim of the petitioner was placed before the competent authority vide letter dated 06.09.2016 containing all relevant facts in relation to the petitioner including the fact that he is otherwise qualified to be appointed on vacant post of Class-IV. Thereafter, his claim was rejected by respondent Signature Not Verified SAN No.2 vide impugned order dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure-P/1).
Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY Date: 2020.09.09 10:46:38 IST2 WP-7449-2017 The challenge for granting compassionate appointment is made only on the ground that the brother of the petitioner was residing separately and having his own family, not providing any financial assistance to deceased's family. The petitioner has also filed a document i.e. Annexure-P/10 showing that the family of the deceased does not include the name of the elder brother of the petitioner and, therefore, his appointment in government service cannot be the basis for discarding the petitioner to grant compassionate appointment. In the application filed by the petitioner i.e. I.A. No.10431/2020 reliance has been placed on a decision passed in case of Ku. Neha Sharma (supra), in which, the High Court dealt with the claim of compassionate appointment and relying upon a decision passed in case of Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 has held that merely because one of the family members is working in the government establishment, residing separately and maintaining his family, cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment in view of the Clause-4.1 of the Policy prevailing for grant of compassionate appointment in the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
Per contra, the counsel for the respondents has denied the claim of the petitioner saying that the case, on which, the petitioner has placed reliance, is not applicable to him because the scheme prevailing at the time of considering the application in regard to grant of compassionate appointment, disqualified the petitioner for granting the said benefit.
Surprisingly, the petitioner has not filed any policy showing as to under which provision of law, he is entitled to get compassionate appointment even in the eventuality when one of the family members of the deceased employee is already in a government service though one policy dated 01.05.2000 has been filed by the respondents as Annexure-R-5/1, which deals with disqualification of a candidate who claims for compassionate appointment and Clause-1 of disqualification very categorically provides that if any of the Signature Not Verified SAN family member of the deceased employee is already working in government Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY Date: 2020.09.09 10:46:38 IST 3 WP-7449-2017 service or service of any corporation of the State Government, then other family member of the said family, would not be entitled to get compassionate appointment. Even thereafter, rejoinder was filed, but the petitioner has not filed any policy rebutting the stand of the respondents saying as to whether the Policy dated 01.05.2000 is applicable or not.
Now, the question before this Court is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment even after considering the fact that his elder brother is already in a government service and the reason assigned in the order is not justified.
I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, but as per the reason assigned in the impugned order, it indicates that in the circular prevailing for considering the claim of compassionate appointment, there is no provision for granting compassionate appointment to the family members of the deceased employee if other family member is already in a government service. There is a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A. No.373/2015 (Prajesh Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others) wherein a claim of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the brother of the petitioner therein is employed in a government service. The Division Bench considering the provisions of policy invoked at the relevant point of time contained the provisions as below:-
"if any person of the deceased's family is already in a government service, then rest of the persons are not eligible to get compassionate appointment."
That clause available in the policy, referred and taken note of by the Division Bench, was published on 18.08.2008. Certainly, the father of the present petitioner died on 01.11.2015 and his claim was considered by the authority in the year 2016. The policy as has been relied by the respondents and filed as Annexure-R-5/1, is not applicable although contained the clause of disqualification for grant of compassionate appointment. But in the existing Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY Date: 2020.09.09 10:46:38 IST 4 WP-7449-2017 circumstance, the provisions of the policy dated 18.08.2008 would prevail which has been taken note of by the Division Bench in case of Prajesh Shrivastava (supra).
Thus, I have no hesitation to say that the order passed by the Division Bench in case of Prajesh Shrivastava (supra) is binding upon this Court and not the order passed in case of Ku. Neha Sharma (supra), on which, the petitioner has placed reliance. Even otherwise, the Writ Court in case of Ku. Neha Sharma (supra) was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the authority to reconsider the claim of compassionate appointment, but finally it has been decided by the respondents saying that the actual fact has not been brought to the notice of the Court. Accordingly, I am not impressed with the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in case of Prajesh Shrivastava (supra), I do not find any substance in the petition. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY Date: 2020.09.09 10:46:38 IST