Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... vs Abhijeet Singh Dev on 4 December, 2018
1
WA-1658-2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WA-1658-2018
(MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD. & ORS. vs. ABHIJEET SINGH DEV)
Gwalior, Dated 04.12.2018
Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
The controversy revolves around Clause 3.3 of the Company's Policy for compassionate appointment (daiuh esa vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh uhfr&2013¼lalksf/kr½) which is in the following terms:
^^3-3- fnoaxr daiuh lsod ds ifjokj dk dksbZ Hkh vuqdaik fu;qfDr dk ik= lnL; iwoZ ls 'kkldh; lsod vFkok 'kklu ds fuxe] eaMy] ifj"kn] vk;ksx] daiuh vkfn esa fu;ksftr gks rks vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds fy, ik=rk ugha gksxhA** Learned Single Judge dwelling upon the claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the death of his father on 18/08/2015 who was employed as Assistant Engineer has construed that the employment of the respondent's mother in Madhav Institute of Technology and Science(MITS), Gwalior, cannot be 2 WA-1658-2018 treated as employment as would be any hindrance under said Clause. Consequently, vide impugned order, learned Single Judge has directed the Appellants to reconsider the claim of respondent for compassionate appointment.
Learned Single Judge observed:
"8.1. The expression 'vkfn' which means etcetra in english language found in Clause 3.3 of the policy is reproduced below:
"fnoaxr daiuh lsod ds ifjokj dk dksbZ Hkh vuqdaik fu;qfDr dk ik= lnL; iwoZ ls 'kkldh; lsod vFkok 'kklu ds fuxe] eaMy] ifj"kn] vk;ksx] daiuh vkfn esa fu;ksftr gks rks vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds fy, ik=rk ugha gksxhA"""
8.2. This expression 'vkfn' purports to include within its sweep such other institutions apart from the ones mentioned in the said Clause, which belong to the Government. Meaning thereby that such other institutions which are owned/managed/controlled by the Government to the extent that the relevant statute vests power of dominant nature upon the State to be able to inter-alia supersede/abolish such institutions.
9. In the instant case, the mother of the petitioner is employed at MITS which is an institution imparting professional education comprising of different 3 WA-1658-2018 courses which are run, managed and controlled by a trust/society in which government does not have any dominant role to play, except providing the necessary grant and ensuring that the institute follows a particular standard of curriculum for students and merit while appointing the faculty members. The MITS cannot be treated at par with statutory Corporation, Board, Council, Panchayats, Commissions, Companies or like bodies over which State Government has deep and pervasive control.
9.1. In view of the above discussion, this Court unhesitatingly holds that MITS does not fall within the expression ^^'kklu ds fuxe] eaMy] ifj"kn] vk;ksx] daiuh vkfn-----------**"as provided in Clause 3.3."
Word 'etc' or 'etcetera' as noted in the Interpretation of Statute by Justice G.P. Singh, would mean:
"'Etc.' or 'etcetera' does not mean 'et alia', but means 'and all the rest'. A clause in a charter party was worded as follows: 'Should the vessel be detained by causes over which the charterers have no control, viz. quarantine, ice, hurricane, blockade, clearing of the steamer after the last cargo is taken over, etc. no demurrage is to be 4 WA-1658-2018 charged and lay days not to count'; Held, the initial general words were not limited to particular instances mentioned but referred to all causes over which the charterers had no control; See Ambatielos v. Anton Jurgens Margarine Works, (1922) All ER 543, pp. 546, 549 : 1923 AC 175 (HL)"
In view whereof, and in our considered opinion, the word "vkfn" (or etc) appearing in Clause 3.3 of the Policy will not limit the nature of establishment wherein one of the members of family is employed.
What is relevant is the "employment", because the appointment on compassionate ground is not a right but privilege. A co-ordinate Bench dwelling upon the scope of compassionate appointment in Prajesh Shrivastava vs. State of M.P.:[2016(3)MPLJ 88], observed:
"28. Trite it is that appointment to public service is to be on merit in accordance with the Rules furthering the principle enunciated in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Exception, however, has been carved out in favour 5 WA-1658-2018 of dependents of employees who die in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. For that, State Government has evolved a policy for appointment on compassionate ground with an object to provide immediate relief to such bereaved family.
29. While dwelling upon this aspect, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh (1997) 8 SCC 85 -
"8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment.
However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception belief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependents in a vacancy. The object is to give succor to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the 6 WA-1658-2018 untimely death of its sole bread-winner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment."
30. Thus, while acknowledging the exception carved out for appointment on compassionate ground, it has been categorically observed that "object of providing such an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment". Similarly, in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 11 SCC 384, it is held -
"11. However, it is now a well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the Public Sector Undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of 7 WA-1658-2018 the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis."
The foremost factor for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground since is to protect the family members of the deceased employee from penury. It is in said context, Clause 3.3 of the Policy is to be understood. And when the word 'etc' does not limit the instances shown therein, in our considered opinion, it is erroneous to exclude employment of respondent's mother with Madhav Institute of Technology and Science, an autonomous College, from the ambit of Clause 3.3.
The impugned order when tested on the anvil of above analysis cannot be upheld. Consequently, set aside. The Writ Petition preferred by respondent is dismissed. Order dated 08/07/2016 is upheld.
Writ Appeal is disposed of in above terms. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
pwn*
PAWAN KUMAR
2018.12.10
19:18:30 +05'30'