Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 362 (MP)

Prakash Parmar v. Government of M. P.

2012-03-29

N.K.MODY

body2012
JUDGMENT : Petitioner by Ms.Bharti Pal, advocate.Respondents by Mr, Mukesh Parwal, GA. The prayer in the petition is for quashment of the order Annexure P/7, whereby application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was dismissed. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was in the Government Job as Asstt.Grade-II, who died on 5-6-2010.Petitioner applied for appointment on the compassionate ground, which has been dismissed by order Annexure P/7 on the ground that Mukesh brother of the petitioner is in Government job.It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside.It is submitted that Mukesh is not a member of the family of the deceased and was also not dependent on the deceased, while the petitioner is bachelor.Learned counsel further submits that Mukesh is also not in Government service as he is working as Teacher on contractual basis.It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner who is widow of the deceased is also dependent on the petitioner.It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the respondents be directed to provide compassionate appointment. 3.Learned counsel for the respondents submit that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in passing the impugned order.It is submitted that as per policy for grant of compassionate appointment, if any of the member of the family of the deceased is in Government job, then the candidate is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.It is submitted that the petition be dismissed. 4.Vide circular dated 8-8-2008 State of M.P.has framed the Rules for compassionate appointment.Rule 4(1) reads as under : 4.1.XXX XXX XXX 5.Words "family" has been defined under the Fundamental Rules which reads as under : "(8) "Family" (a) means a Government servant's wife or husband, as the case may be residing with the Government servant and legitimate children and step children residing with and wholly dependent upon the Government servant.Except for purposes of section XVI-A of the Supplementary Rules in Appendix V, it includes, in addition, parents, sisters and minor brothers, if residing with and wholly dependent upon the Government servant. (b) For the purpose of section XI, it includes in addition unmarried and widowed sisters and minor brothers, if residing with and wholly dependent upon the Govt.servant. (b) For the purpose of section XI, it includes in addition unmarried and widowed sisters and minor brothers, if residing with and wholly dependent upon the Govt.servant. 6.M.P.Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 which has been framed by the State Government, also defines the word 'family' which reads as under: (d) "Family " means - (i) The wife or husband of a Government servant, (ii) The parents, legitimate children including children adopted legally and step children of such Government servant residing with and wholly dependent on the Government servant. 7.In the matter of Haryana Public Service Commission vs. Harinder Singh and another, AIR 1999 SC 551 word 'dependents' defined which includes, besides wife and widow, dependent sons/daughters. In this case Hon. Apex Court has observed that the whole idea of the reservation is that those who are dependent for their survival on men who have lost their lives or became disabled in the service of the nation should not suffer. The public purpose of such reservation would be totally lost if it were to be made available to those who are I gainfully employed. There is no justification for construing the words. 'Dependants of ex serviceman' in any manner other than that in which the appellant has construed them. This is accord with the reservation policy itself as shown by the quotation therefrom afforested. 8.In the matter of Ku.Priyanka Dixit vs.State of M.P., WP No.3250 of 2006 decided on 17th July, 2007 this Court has held that in terms of GAD Policy dated 20/08/01, brother who is living separately does not come within the meaning of expression 'family'. It was further held by this Court that once the brother who was in the employment, is not residing along with the deceased and residing separately then it cannot be construed, that, one of the member of the family of the deceased was in employment. 9.In the order Annexure P/7 it is nowhere stated that Mukesh brother of the petitioner was dependent on the deceased, while the contention of the petitioner is that Mukesh is living separately with his family and is only a contractual teacher. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order Annexure P/7 is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order Annexure P/7 is quashed. Petitioner is directed to submit fresh application before the competent Authority, wherein petitioner shall narrate full facts about the widow, marital and financial status of the petitioner and also the family and financial status of brother Mukesh. If such an application is filed along with copy of the order passed today, then the competent Authority shall decide the same keeping in view the definition of 'family' as mentioned in M.P.Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, as the word 'family' is not defined in the policy of compassionate appointment, within a period of eight weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10.With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.