Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 809 (MP)

Chhotelal Pachouri v. State of M. P.

2014-07-11

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Heard. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 1.6.2013, whereby the respondent No. 2 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of land allotment and appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Shri B.M. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's father Shri Ramcharan Lal was dacoity affected. As per Government circulars, the petitioner being legal representative of Ramcharanlal is entitled to get the compassionate appointment and a piece of land. By placing reliance on Annexure P-3, it is submitted that this document shows that petitioner's father was dacoity affected. Criticizing the order, it is urged that once the petitioner is dependent of a dacoity affected person, there is no justification in rejecting the representation. 4. Prayer is opposed by the other side. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. Reliance is placed on Annexure P-3, issued on 3.8.1968. The said certificate contains the name of Ramcharan Das and not of Ramcharan Lal (father of the petitioner). Even assuming that the certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner's father, it was issued in the year 1968. After 1974, the petitioner preferred representation for the first time in 2009. The respondents recorded that in the meantime by circular dated 1.5.2000 the provision of compassionate appointment is discontinued. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the beneficiary provision for granting land and compassionate appointment was made by the State Government with a view to provide immediate helping hand to the persons those who are sufferers of any kind of dacoity. The certificate was issued to the petitioner's father in the year 1968. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of the said incident after about 40 years. 8. this Court has already dismissed the similar claim on the ground of delay and latches in Avinash Upmanyu vs. State of MP and another, Writ Petition No. 7726 of 2013, decided on 29.10.2013. The said order of this Court was unsuccessfully put to test before Division in Writ Appeal No. 78 of 2014. The Division Bench affirmed the order by holding that no helping hand can be provided to a sleeping litigant after many decades. This will frustrate the very purpose for which the beneficiary provision was brought into force. 9. In view of aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.