Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 842 (MP)

Rakesh Jaju v. State of M. P.

2008-07-09

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2008
ORDER 1. Petitioner's father Late Shri Rajendra Jaju (Gupta) was working on the post of Pump Attendant in Municipal Council, Neemuch (Respondent No.4). He died in harness on 18.12.1985. At that time petitioner was minor aged 4 years and 9 months. On attaining majority, he applied for compassionate appointment in place of his father. The fourth respondent considered his application and appointed him on compassionate basis on the post of Asstt. Revenue Inspector vide order dated 9.2.2007 (Annexure P-l). On 13.2.2007, vide Annexure P-2, the order of appointment (Annexure P-1) was modified, and he was given appointment on the post of Pump Attendant. When the matters stood thus, on 13.4.2007 vide annexure P-4, the 4th respondent cancelled the petitioner's appointment order with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. According to the petitioner the order dated 13.4.2007 (Annexure P-4), of 4th respondent cancelling his appointment is arbitrary and illegal. He stated that before cancelling his compassionate appointment no opportunity of hearing has been given and no reasons have assigned. 3. The respondents have filed reply and stated that petitioner's appointment vide order dated 13.2.2007 (Annexure P-2) on compassionate basis was contrary to the policy dated 22.1.2007 (Annexure P-4) in respect of grant of compassionate appointments. According to them, in view of the policy dated 22.1.2007, the compassionate appointment can be given only in case the minor attains majority 'within 7 years of the death of employee, however in case the minor attains majority after 7 years, he would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. It is further stated that in view of the said circular/policy dated 22.1.2007, petitioner's case was examined, and his appointment order was cancelled. 4. Shri Surendra Patwa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that petitioner had applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 1.9.2000 on attaining majority. In the circumstances, the policy (Annexure P-4) which came into force much later on 22.1.2007, could not have been applied by the respondents for cancellation of appointment which was made pursuant to the application dated 1.9.2000 and on the basis of the policy in vogue on the date of application. He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of T Swamidas v. Union of India and others [ 2002 (1) JLJ 350 = 2002 (3) MPLJ 242 ]. 5. He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of T Swamidas v. Union of India and others [ 2002 (1) JLJ 350 = 2002 (3) MPLJ 242 ]. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported the impugned orders passed by respondents cancelling the compassionate appointment of the petitioner placing reliance on the policy dated 22.1.2007 (Annexure R-l). 6. Having heard learned counsel for parties; after perusal of the documents filed alongwith the petition and the return, in my considered view, the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. In case of T Swamidas (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has held that the policy prevailing at the time when the application for compassionate appointment was made had to be applied and not the policy which came into existence subsequently. Admittedly, as it is very clear from the order of appointment Annexure P-l and P-2 that petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 1.9.2000. The said application was processed and petitioner was appointed initially on the post of Asstt. Revenue Inspector, which post was modified vide Annexure P-2 to the post of Pump Attendant. 8. In view of the judgment of Division Bench in the case of T Swamidas (supra), the policy which was prevailing at the time of death petitioner's father or the policy when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment was to be taken into account and not the policy for compassionate appointment which came into force subsequently on 22.1.2007. 9. In view of aforesaid, the decision taken by respondents cancelling petitioner's compassionate appointment cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.4.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by 4th respondent deserves to be and is hereby quashed. However, no orders as to costs.