Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1575 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Neha Sharma

2013-12-19

K.K.LAHOTI, K.K.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT K.K. Trivedi, J. This appeal is directed against an order dated 7.1.2013 in W.P.No.19388/2012(s) by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment was disposed of finally by an order, thus:- “I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. The impugned order dated 29.3.2012 is cryptic and suffers from vice of no non-application of mind. The fact that elder brother of the petitioner was residing separately prior to death of the father of the petitioner and was not providing any financial assistance to the family, has not been considered by the competent authority while passing the impugned order. Clause 4.1 of the policy has to be read in the context of law laid down by Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma (supra). For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order is hereby quashed. The competent authority is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in the light of the observations made in this order. Needless to state, the competent authority while deciding the application submitted by the petitioner shall pass a speaking order. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the competent authority expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” 2. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the writ Court had considered the matter in the light of Para 4.1 of the Policy and the judgment of the Apex Court in Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (2005) 10 SCC 289 and directed for reconsideration of the matter. 3. Now the matter is to be decided by the appellants in accordance with the aforesaid directions. In view of aforesaid, we do not find any error warranting our interference. The appellants shall consider the matter of respondent for compassionate appointment as per Policy and law laid by the Apex Court in Govind Prakash Verma (supra). For this purpose, we allow 30 days' time for consideration of the case of the respondent. We make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appellants shall be free to consider and decide the matter of respondent in accordance with the Policy in question. 4. For this purpose, we allow 30 days' time for consideration of the case of the respondent. We make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appellants shall be free to consider and decide the matter of respondent in accordance with the Policy in question. 4. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of finally, with no order as to costs. C.c. as per rules.