Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 275 (MP)

Vivekkumar Chauhan v. State of M. P.

2014-03-06

S.C.SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mr. Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Parwal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents State. 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition claiming compassionate appointment. 3. Petitioner's contention is that his father was a Government servant and while in service he expired on 17-3-2012. It has been further stated that the petitioner immediately after the death of his father submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment and the same has been turned down by an order dated 27-2-2013 stating that the petitioner's wife is serving as an Assistant Teacher. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioner's wife can never be treated as a member of a family of the deceased Government servant in light of the definition of the 'Family' as defined under the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 read with the policy framed by the State Government dated 18-8-2008. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the eligibility clause i.e. Clause 2.1 and the same reflects that wife and children are entitled for grant of compassionate appointment and as already stated earlier do not include daughter-in-law as the member of the family. 5. This Court has carefully gone through the impugned order and after going through the policy issued by the State Government, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the daughter-in-law does not form the part of the family of the deceased Government servant, though she is a family member of the petitioner, the respondents were un-justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 27-2-2013, The eligibility clause as provided under the policy dated 18-8-2008 reads as under : -- 6. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 27-2-2013 is hereby set aside; The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh ignoring the fact that his wife is serving on the post of Assistant Teacher. The exercise of considering the case of the petitioner afresh be concluded within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid, the petition, stands allowed. No order as to costs. C. c. as per rules. Petition allowed.