Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 293 (MP)

ANIL KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI v. STATE OF M P

2005-02-24

ARUN MISHRA

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER has prayed for compassionate appointment. Petitioners father was in service of the respondents. He died on 29-1-1979. By now 26 years have passed. Petitioner has filed application for compassionate appointment. The prayer has been rejected as per order (P/l) dt. 12-1-2004. Earlier appointment was sought for son-in-law of the deceased by the widow of the deceased, he was appointed on compassionate basis in the year 1994. Prayer made by petitioner has been disallowed as per order (P/l) on the ground that as father has died in the year 1979, it is not possible to give appointment now and one incumbent ie. son-in-law has already been appointed in the year 1994 on compassionate basis as prayed by widow of deceased. ( 2. ) IN my opinion, there is no merit in the petition as father of petitioner has died in the year 1979 and son-in-law was appointed. It has been laid down by the Apex Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another Vs. Nanak Chand and another, 2004 AIR SCW 6339, that after lapse of reasonable time such as 10 years, no appointment can be offered, ordered to be considered as time is the material factor in such cases. The Apex Court has laid down thus :- "8. In State of U. P. and Ors. Vs. Paras Nath [ 1998 (2) SCC 412 ] it was held that the purpose of providing employment to the dependent of a government servant dying -in- harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointments. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time. In that case also the delay was 17 years. 9. These aspects were highlighted in State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin [ 2003 (7) SCC 511 ], State of Haryana and Anr. Vs. Ankur gupta [ 2003 (7) SCC 704 ], Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar [ 1996 (8) SCC 23 ] and Haryana State Electricity board Vs. Hakim Singh [ 1997 (8) SCC 85 ] and Punjab National bank and Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 2004 decided on 16-8-2004. 10. Vs. Ankur gupta [ 2003 (7) SCC 704 ], Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar [ 1996 (8) SCC 23 ] and Haryana State Electricity board Vs. Hakim Singh [ 1997 (8) SCC 85 ] and Punjab National bank and Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 2004 decided on 16-8-2004. 10. Above being the position, we find the judgment of the High court to be unsustainable. The same is, therefore, set aside. " ( 3. ) OTHER decisions have also been referred by this Court in W. P. No. 2829/2003 (Nitin Sen Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Anr.), decided on 10-12-2003 thus :- "8. In S. Mohan Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 9 SCC 485 the apex Court has laid down that the object of the compassionate appointment is to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 9. In Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 , the Apex court has laid down that the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected "immediate hardship and distress" caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. The Apex Court has held that although a "minor" son (4 years old)at the time of his fathers death was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment "after" long 23 years". It has been further held by the Apex Court that object of the appointment is to relieve immediate hardship and stress, such consideration "cannot be kept binding" for years. 10. In Umesh Kumar Nag Pal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Apex Court has held that compassionate appointment "cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future". The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. The Apex Court has further laid down that it must be remembered in the matter of compassionate appointment that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. 11. In Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar, (1996)8 SCC 23 where the sons on attaining majority, "12 and 13 long years" after the event claimed compassionate appointment, though there was no time limit for making such a claim at the time of death of deceased-employee, the claims were held to be unsustainable. 12. In Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Krishna Devi, (2002) 2 llj 773 , the Apex Court has laid down that application for employment on compassionate ground made after "eight years" after the employees death cannot be said to be one to meet the immediate financial need of the family. 13. In State of U. P. Vs. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC 412 the Apex court has laid down that when for the first time the son had made an application after "17 years" of the employees death, on such belated application son was held not entitled to any relief as the object is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time. " ( 4. ) I find no ground to interfere. Writ Petition is devoid of merit, same is dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.