Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1594 (MP)

Raj Laxmi Sharma v. State of M. P.

2014-12-04

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to approve the recommendation of the employer for compassionate appointment. She also prayed for a direction to appoint her on compassionate basis. The order dated 7.5.2009 (Annexure P/11), whereby employer's recommendation was not approved is also called in question. 2. The petitioner is wife of late Vijay Kumar Sharma, who was working as Assistant Teacher in respondent No.3-Institution. He died on 23.8.1999 leaving behind the petitioner. The petitioner, in turn, submitted an application before the employer seeking compassionate appointment. The employer, in turn, passed the order dated 9.9.1999, Annexure P-2, and requested the State Government to accept the recommendation and appoint the petitioner. The petitioner was not appointed and by Annexure P-11, it was intimated that such recommendation cannot be approved. In the return, the respondents stated that a ban was imposed on compassionate appointment w.e.f. 30.11.1999 (Annexure R-1). The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. This matter was heard for sometime by this Court on 6.8.2013. Shri S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted that for similarly situated candidates, the recommendations were accepted and they were given appointment on compassionate basis. This Court on the said date directed the State to file additional return explaining the aforesaid position. In turn, additional return is filed by the State. 4. In the additional return, it is contended that the case of Dilip Kumar Namdev, with whom parity is claimed, is different. Father of Dilip Kumar Namdev expired on 8.3.1998. His claim was also rejected but pursuant to direction passed in WP No.602/2000, the compassionate appointment was granted. It is submitted that the ban was imposed on 30.11.1999 and, therefore, petitioner's case cannot be considered because no proposal has been sent for compassionate appointment. 5. Shri B.B.Shukla, learned counsel for the Institution supported the stand taken in Annexure P-2. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The singular reason assigned for giving a different treatment to the petitioner is on the basis of the ban w.e.f. 30.11.1999 on the compassionate appointment. However, in the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is clear that said ban cannot be applied in case of the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The singular reason assigned for giving a different treatment to the petitioner is on the basis of the ban w.e.f. 30.11.1999 on the compassionate appointment. However, in the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is clear that said ban cannot be applied in case of the petitioner. Petitioner's husband died on 23.8.1999 and her claim was recommended by the employer on 9.9.1999, i.e., much before the date of imposition of ban on the compassionate appointment. This Court in WP No. 602/2000 (Annexure R/2) opined as under :- “6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected only on the ground that the circular dated 30.11.1999 bans compassionate appointment in School receiving grant-in-aid and that resolution has not been passed. During the course of hearing it has been indicated that subsequent thereof the ban has been lifted and now after the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Sharique Ali v. State of M.P., 2002 (1) M.P.H.T. 315 , with regard to payment of grant-in-aid the employees are entitled to compassionate appointment. That apart, it was submitted that merely because resolution was not sent by respondent No.3, case of the petitioner could not be rejected. 7. Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that the respondent No.3 shall reconsider the case of the petitioner and forward the resolution to respondent No.2 in accordance with the directives issued in the earlier letter issued by the said respondents and when such a resolution is received by respondent No.2, respondent No.2 shall process the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with the rules and regulations application for the same and take a final decision thereof within a period of two months from the receipt of resolution. Respondent No.3 shall reconsider within a period of two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this on the basis of the application already filed by the petitioner and if they so desire may call fresh application from the petitioner. 8. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.” 8. A careful reading of this order shows that the petitioner is similarly situated qua Dilip Kumar Namdev. They are dependents of the employees who died before imposition of ban. 8. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.” 8. A careful reading of this order shows that the petitioner is similarly situated qua Dilip Kumar Namdev. They are dependents of the employees who died before imposition of ban. The employer recommended in their favour before imposition of ban. Ban also stood lifted later on. Resultantly, the petitioner cannot be given step motherly treatment. The petitioner has a valuable right of consideration which accrues in her favour prior to imposition of ban. Thus, the petitioner deserves same treatment which was given to Shri Dilip Kumar Namdev. The respondents have erred in creating an artificial distinction between petitioner and Dilip Kumar Namdev. 9. Resultantly, petition is allowed. The rejection order, Annexure P/11 dated 7.5.2009, is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and recommendation of the employer, Annexure P-2, on the basis of policy, which was prevailing before 30.11.1999. They shall consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of filing certified copy of this order. 10. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. S. P. Sharma for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Dy. Government Advocate for respondent/State; B. B. Shukla for respondent/Institution.