Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Bhabhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
WP No.23973/2021
Umesh Bhabhar Vs. State of MP
Indore: Dated:- 12/11/2021:-
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.09.2015
(Annexure P/8) whereby his prayer for compassionate appointment
was rejected by the respondents.
2) Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's father died in harness on 11.10.2007. The petitioner immediately after attaining majority preferred application for compassionate appointment which was wrongly rejected by the respondents by impugned order. In para-4 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that there is no delay in filing the petition by taking assistance of the Rules of 2005. In addition, it is pleaded that it is a recurring cause of action which arises everyday. Hence, this petition is entertainable.
3) I do not see any merit in the said contention. This is trite that the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate helping hand to the dependent in distress. The petitioner's father died on 11.10.2007. The representation was rejected almost 6 years back on 30.09.2015. The petitioner attained majority 10 years back. Thus, it will be a travesty of justice if mandamus is issued to consider a candidate after the said long time. I am unable to hold that after rejection of representation/claim, petitioner gets any recurring cause of action. The said contention is misconceived.
4) The division bench of this Court in WA No.10/2020 decided on 7.6.2021 in the matter of Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. & Ors Vs. Ashq Shah & another has taken note of legal journey in cases of delay in seeking compassionate appointment. It is apt to quote the relevant portion:-
2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE WP No.23973/2021 Umesh Bhabhar Vs. State of MP "[6] This is trite that compassionate appointment is carved out as exception to the general rule. The two well recognized contingencies for grant of compassionate appointment are - (i) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of death of the bread winner while in service; (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread winner. (See (2008) 13 SCC 730 V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of U.P.).
[7] Reference may be made to (1998) 2 SCC 412 (State of U.P. Vs. Paras Nath) wherein after taking note of previous judgment reported in (1995) 6 SCC 476 (Union of India Vs. Bhagwansingh), the Apex Court opined as under:-
State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath (1998) 2 SCC 412 "6.We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh [(1995) 6 SCC 476: 1996 SCC (L&S) 33: (1995) 31 ATC 736]. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. This Court observed:
"The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family."
7. No such considerations would normally operate seventeen years after the death of the government servant. The High Court was, therefore, not right in granting any relief to the respondents."
(emphasis supplied) [8] Similarly, in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P.(2009) 6 SCC 481, the Apex Court poignantly held as under:-
Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481 "12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE WP No.23973/2021 Umesh Bhabhar Vs. State of MP of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service."
(emphasis supplied) [9] It is trite that the basic purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate helping hand to the family in distress. The appointment cannot be directed to be given after more than two decades. There cannot be a reservation of vacancy till a candidate becomes major after number of years. In (2000) 7 SCC 192 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), the Apex Court opined as under:-
"3... This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."
(emphasis supplied) A Division Bench of this Court took same view in 2003(1) MPLJ 342 [Beni Lal Bamney Vs. Union of India and others] and 2005(4) MPLJ 575 (Riazuddin Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others].
[10] By passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed consideration of respondent No.1 on compassionate ground after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of respondent No.1. In view of 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE WP No.23973/2021 Umesh Bhabhar Vs. State of MP principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we are unable to countenance the order of learned writ court. No directions could have been issued for consideration on compassionate ground after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of respondent No.1. The very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment will be defeated if claims of compassionate appointment after decades are entertained."
(Emphasis Supplied)
5) In the light of aforesaid, I find no reason to entertain this petition. The other judgments mentioned in the relief clause do not deal with the aspect of inordinate delay in approaching the Court. Hence, the said judgments are of no assistance.
6) For the reasons stated above, admission is declined. Petition is dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE soumya Digitally signed by SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Date: 2021.11.12 17:36:06 +05'30'