Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 743 (MP)

Wasim Ali v. State of M. P.

2006-05-19

R.K.GUPTA

body2006
ORDER 1. Petitioner by Shri Ramesh Shrivastava, Advocate. He is heard on the question of admission. In the present case, the petitioner is caliming compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner was in the employment of respondent No.2 and expired on 6.12.1994. The claim for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner on attaining the majority. The said claim has been rejected. 2. Purpose for providing compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the family, which is suffering with the harnes. No scheme is filed on record for such appointment. The Apex court in (2004) 12 SCC 487 [National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another] has already considered that the claim with regard to compassionate appointment on attaining majority is not liable to be accepted. In the said case, the apex Court was considering a question with regard to the claim made by respondent on attaining majority after ten years of his father's death. The said claim was negatived by the apex Court. The paragraph 7 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: "7. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India [ AIR 1989 S.C. 1976 ] it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground. Unless the scheme itself envisages specifically otherwise to State that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati v. Union of India and Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh. In Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar it was observed that in the matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the defendants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the defendants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision." In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court (supra) no case is made out by the petitioner for his compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.