Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2011
1
Writ Petition No. 17566 / 2011
2.12.2011:
Shri Sameer Beohar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for
the State.
Claiming compassionate appointment in the
department of the respondents, after death of petitioner's
father, this writ petition has been filed.
2. Records indicate that petitioner's father was working in the Forest Department and died in harness on 13.12.1986. At that point of time, as there was ban on grant of compassionate appointment, no action was taken. In the year 1994 the ban was removed and, therefore, petitioner's mother moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment. The application of petitioner's mother was considered and she was granted appointment on the basis of a decision taken in the meeting of the appropriate committee on 15.5.1995, when appointment was granted to petitioner's mother on the post of Peon she refused appointment on the ground that she wants appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk, this was not acceded to. Subsequently in the year 2001 at that point of time petitioner was only 17 years of age and, therefore, mother submitted an application that her son be granted appointment after he attains the age of 18 years on 2 2.1.2001. This request of petitioner's mother was rejected on 17.11.2004 and now after a period of more than 6 years this writ petition is filed.
3. The purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to ward off the financial crises that has fallen into family. Supreme Court in series of cases has held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the family surviving crisis for more than 10 to 14 years.
4. In the present case, death of bread winner took place in the year 1986 and the wife was granted compassionate appointment in the year 1995, she refused compassionate appointment and wanted appointment for her son, who was minor at that point of time. As per policy then existing, compassionate appointment could not be granted to a person in whose case the death has occurred more than 7 years back. Keeping in view all these factors, the prayer for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner was rejected on 17.11.2004 and now this petition is filed after more than 6 years claiming compassionate appointment.
5. From the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the death of bread-winner took place on 13.12.1986, it was a fit case where indulgence should be made now after more than 20 years for purpose when the wife of the deceased employee was granted compassionate appointment in the year 1995 and she refused the compassionate appointment when offered to 3 her. Compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of recruitment but dehors the normal procedure of appointment, which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, it is not a fit case where interference into the matter can be made after such a long period of time.
6. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the grounds raised, the petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-