Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Chandra Nagalkar vs Secretary State Of M.P. And 2 Ors. on 31 July, 2014
1
WP No.8694/2013
31/07/2014
Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri.Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for respondents.
Heard.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20/1/2011 by which the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
In brief, one Uberchandra, an employee of the respondents had died in harness on 1/3/2010. The petitioner being the son of the deceased employee had filed an application for compassionate appointment which has been dismissed by order dated 2/1/2011 on the ground that the petitioner's brother Vijay Nagalkar is working as Assistant Engineer Production in M.P. Power Generating Co.Ltd and since one of the member of the family is in employment, therefore, in terms of the Clause 4.1 of the policy for compassionate appointment, the other members are not entitled for the compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that while rejecting the application for compassionate appointment the respondents have not considered the plea that the brother of the 2 petitioner is living separately and is not supporting the family.
As against this, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order.
By the impugned order, the respondents have rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner's brother is already employed permanently in M.P. Power Generating Company Ltd. In the representation against the said order Annexure P/6, the petitioner had raised the specific plea that the petitioner's brother is living separately and is not supporting the family. The division bench of this Court in the matter of State of MP and another Vs.Mehmood Hussain Mansuri by order dated 25/6/2014 passed in WA No.729/2013 has held that whether the brother of the petitioner is living separately and not with the family and other dependents of the deceased employee and they have no financial support from any other source is relevant consideration while deciding the application for compassionate appointment. Similar is the view taken by this Court in the matter of Sohan Joshi Vs. State of MP and others reported in 2012(3) MPLJ 743. Since the said relevant aspect of the matter needs consideration by the respondents and the same has not been considered while 3 passing the impugned order dated 2/1/2011, therefore, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the concerned respondent to decide the petitioner's application afresh keeping in view the observations made above. Let the said exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
c.c as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge VM