Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Cpct in Smt. Neema Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2025Matching Fragments
7.2 यह क, माननीय यायालय यािचकाकता को जो भी उिचत सहायता याय हत म दलाया जाना उिचत समझे दलाये जाने क कृ पा कर।''
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that after death of her husband, she was granted appointment on compassionate ground. In the appointment order, it was mentioned that petitioner will be required to obtain CPCT Score Card within a period of three years. Since petitioner could not obtain the CPCT Score Card, therefore, additional period of one year was granted by order dated 30.04.2024. Now by order dated 09.01.2025, petitioner has been directed to produce the CPCT Score Card, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2553 2 WP-2660-2025 failing which, her services will be terminated with effect from 12.01.2025.
3. On a specific query, it was submitted by counsel for petitioner that subsequently petitioner has not been paid her salaries. Thus, it is clear that services of petitioner must have been terminated with effect from 12.01.2025 on the ground of non-submission of CPCT Score Card. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether termination of services of an employee, who was granted appointment on compassionate ground, on the aforesaid ground can be said to be justified or not. Appointment on compassionate ground is on account of death of the bread-winner and it cannot be equated with direct recruitment. Therefore, the criteria for appointment on compassionate ground is completely different from that of the direct recruitment. If respondents have offered a post for which obtaining the CPCT Score Card was necessary then it was voluntary act of the respondents and in case, if petitioner has failed to obtain the CPCT Score Card, then her services should not have been terminated but an option should have been given to her that in case, if she is voluntarily ready to work against a post for which CPCT Score Card is not required, and then the respondent should have considered her case in the light of her undertaking.
4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that no such opportunity was given to petitioner to express her willingness as to whether she is ready to work on a lower post for which CPCT Score Card is not required. It is submitted that in case, if such an option is given, then petitioner is ready to work even on a Class IV post for which CPCT Score Card is not required. It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Shubham Sen Vs. The State NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2553 3 WP-2660-2025 of Madhya Pradesh and Others decided on 29.11.2024 in W.P.No.37640/2024 has taken a similar view.
4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that in spite of multiple opportunities, the petitioner could not clear the CPCT examination. It was specifically mentioned in the appointment order that the petitioner is required to pass the CPCT examination and having failed to do so, the respondents were left with no other option but to bring the service of the petitioner to an end.