Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 141 (MP)

Om Prakash Koshta v. State of M. P.

2011-02-01

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal, filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.9.2010 dismissing the Appellant's Writ Petition No. 6278/2006 seeking compassionate appointment. 2. It appears that the father of the Petitioner/Appellant late Shankarlal Koshta was working as a Driver in the Fishery Department. However, he died in harness on 28.6.1998. The Petitioner/Appellant, being the son and the dependent of the deceased employee, was offered an appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Chowkidar on an application made on his behalf. The order of compassionate appointment was issued on 3.12.1998; but it appears that the Petitioner/Appellant did not join on the aforesaid post and for the first time in the year 2003 appeared before the authorities and submitted that since he had no knowledge about the order of appointment made in the year 1998 and came to know about it subsequently, he be permitted to join. 3. On the other hand, the case of the State/Respondent before the learned Single Judge was that despite knowledge of the appointment the Petitioner did not submit his joining because he was claiming appointment as Assistant Grade III instead of Chowkidar; since he was not given appointment against Assistant Grade III, he did not join the post for a long period of 5 years and ultimately appeared in the year 2003 and sought permission to join on the post of Chowkidar. 4. The learned Single Judge, having perused the record which was summoned by his Lordship while hearing the petition, found that on 6.9.1998 the Joint Director, Jabalpur, intimated to all concerned including the Collector, Jabalpur, about his appointment as Chowkidar; however, the Appellant appeared before him on 23.12.1998 and refused to join the post and further requested for giving him appointment as Assistant Grade III. The learned Single Judge has found that there are overwhelming communications available in the original file indicating the aforesaid facts and, therefore, it would be difficult to believe the contention of the learned Counsel that the order dated 3.12.1998 appointing him as Chowkidar was not within his knowledge and never served on him. 5. The learned Single Judge has found that there are overwhelming communications available in the original file indicating the aforesaid facts and, therefore, it would be difficult to believe the contention of the learned Counsel that the order dated 3.12.1998 appointing him as Chowkidar was not within his knowledge and never served on him. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relying on the letter dated 22.11.2002 issued by the Director, Fisheries, the application made by him before the Assistant Director, Fisheries, Bargi, Jabalpur, dated 29.1.2003 and the letter of the Director, Fisheries, dated 26.11.1998, sought to argue that the Appellant for the first time learnt about the appointment on Class IV post in the year 2003 and the finding of the learned Single Judge that he was aware of this fact in the year 1998 is not supported by any evidence. 6. We do not find any force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant for the reason that it finds no support from the record which in fact indicates to the contrary and as no prudent man can accept the submission that on compassionate appointment having been offered to him in the year 1998 such appointee will not enquire about the same for five years. We, therefore, do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal being without merit is dismissed.