Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 992 (MP)

Mamtesh Chaturvedi v. State of M. P.

2013-08-22

R.S.Jha

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondents No. 4 and 5 are not giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of teacher in their school. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the father of petitioner late Shri Indrabhan Tiwari was working as teacher in the School run by the respondents No. 4 and 5 and died while in harness in the year 1992. Thereafter the son of the deceased employee Shailendra Kumar Tiwari applied for compassionate appointment and the Deputy Director Education, Satna issued an order on 29.1.1994 directing the respondents No. 4 and 5 to appoint him on compassionate ground as teacher in their institution. While correspondence between the respondents No. 4 and 5 and the petitioner was going on, the son of the deceased employee, Shailendra Kumar Tiwari obtained a job else where and chose not to press for the compassionate appointment in the establishment of the respondents and instead the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in place of her brother along with an affidavit of Shailendra Kumar Tiwari to the effect that he does not wish to press for compassionate appointment pursuant to the directions issued by the Deputy Director Education, Satna and compassionate appointment may now be given to the petitioner. 3. As the respondents No. 4 and 5 have not appointed the petitioner on compassionate ground inspite of the directions issued by the Deputy Director Education, Satna, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents No. 4 and 5 to appoint her in their institution as a teacher. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the policy for compassionate appointment the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground as a teacher in the school run by the respondents No. 4 and 5 and that the act of the respondents in denying the same, amounts to denial of her rights. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the policy for compassionate appointment the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground as a teacher in the school run by the respondents No. 4 and 5 and that the act of the respondents in denying the same, amounts to denial of her rights. 5. The respondents No. 4 and 5 have filed a return and stated that after the death of the father of the petitioner, his son had approached for compassionate appointment and the order dated 29.1.1994 was issued by the Deputy Director Education, Satna, in his favour but the said Shailendra Tiwari did not press for compassionate appointment on account of the fact that he had already obtained appointment in P.W.D. It is submitted that thereafter the second son of the deceased employee was entitled to apply for compassionate appointment but he did not apply for the same so the petitioner put forth her claim, who is a married daughter of the deceased employee and not staying along with the family of the deceased employee. It is stated by the respondents that the family of the deceased employee is financially stable and there is no need to grant compassionate appointment to the family members of the deceased employee, therefore the petition be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the death of the petitioner’s father took place in the year 1992, that the directions for compassionate appointment of the petitioner’s brother were issued on 29.1.1994 by the Deputy Director Education, Satna, that the said son thereafter filed an affidavit on 26.7.1995 stating that he did not wish to press for compassionate appointment as he had been engaged profitably else where and that thereafter the petitioner came in the picture. It is also clear that the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee and was neither looking after the family nor was she wholly dependent upon her father. 7. It is also clear that the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee and was neither looking after the family nor was she wholly dependent upon her father. 7. Quite apart from the above, it is a settled law that compassionate appointment is granted to one of the eligible members of the family of a deceased employee without following the procedure prescribed by the rules in exceptional circumstances prescribed under the scheme framed in that regard by the State Government to grant immediate relief to the family members of a deceased employee with a view to enable them to over come the sudden hardship and financial crisis that the family is required to face immediately after the death of the sole bread-winner of the family. 8. In the instant case from the facts stated in the petition as well as in the return, it is clear that the family of the deceased was not facing any financial crisis and that the son of the deceased employee who had been directed to be given compassionate appointment, refused to accept the same. It is also clear that the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee residing else where but is seeking compassionate appointment in the establishment of the respondents which apparently frustrates the very concept and object of compassionate appointment. 9. Quite apart from the above the death of the father of the petitioner occurred in 1992 whereas the petition is being decided in the year 2013 and in such circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner, who was neither depend upon the deceased employee nor was residing with the family, cannot be granted compassionate appointment. 10. The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.