Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 115 (MP)

Monika Shukla v. State of M. P.

2015-01-30

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
ORDER 1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following relief :- “Respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation Annexure P-6 of petitioner and if the petitioner completing their eligibility criteria, the appointment be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is against inaction of the respondents in deciding his claim for compassionate appointment reiterated by representation Annexure P-5. 3. Factual matrix lying at the core of the petition is that the petitioner's father Late Ramprakash Shukla died in harness on 16.4.1976 while holding the post of Platoon Commandant under the respondents. Since the daughter/petitioner was born in the year 1974-75, she could not make any application seeking compassionate appointment, when her father passed away. The appointment was ultimately made on attaining the age of majority sometime in 1994-95 vide Annexure P-2. It appears that some correspondence took place between the functionaries of respondent/organization where the late father of the petitioner worked, but the same did not reach their logical end. The petitioner contends that he kept representing and the last representation made for claiming compassionate appointment is marked as Annexure P-5, which is undated. 4. Thus, the principal grievance of the petitioner is indecision of the respondents in considering and deciding her claim for compassionate appointment raised initially sometime in the year 1994-95 when the petitioner attained the age of majority followed by repeated representations. 5. It is settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the statutorily provided normal mode of recruitment and is meant to cater to extraordinary circumstances arising out of sudden death of the Government servant leaving behind his/her dependents without any source of income. This extraordinary mode of recruitment by way of compassionate appointment is devised to ward off the destitution and penury that may visit the bereaved members of the family of the Government servant dying in harness. 6. On the basis of the abovesaid avowed object behind the concept of compassionate appointment, the need arises to claim and agitate for grant of compassionate appointment with utmost promptitude. 6. On the basis of the abovesaid avowed object behind the concept of compassionate appointment, the need arises to claim and agitate for grant of compassionate appointment with utmost promptitude. If there is any delay in claiming and agitating for the relief of compassionate appointment, then by passage of time, the said claim becomes stale and then ultimately dead as it is presumed that if the dependents of the Government servant dying in harness can sustain themselves for a considerably long period of time, then the need urgency for compassionate appointment, vanishes since it can safely be presumed that the dependents have discovered an alternative sources of earning their livelihood. 7. Thus, it is necessary that the claim for compassionate appointment is not only sought but also agitated in all forums available under the law with utmost promptitude. The said proposition has been laid down by the apex Court and reiterated time and again in the several cases; some of which in shape of (1) State of U.P. and others v. Paras Nath : (1998)2 SCC 412 ; (2) Sanjay Kumar v.State of Bihar and others : (2000)7 SCC 192 ; (3) State of Manipur v. Md. Rajaodin : (2003)7 SCC 511 ; (4) State of J and K and others v. Sayad Ahmed Mr : (2006)5 SCC 766 ; and (5) Local Administration Department and another v. M. Selvanayagam : (2011)13 SCC 42 ; and can be profitably referred to. 8. In the case at hand, the cause for raising the claim for compassionate appointment arose to the petitioner in 1994-95 when he attained the age of superannuation after his father died in harness in 1976. Though it appears that the petitioner has raised his claim before the employer soon after attaining the age of majority, but he failed to agitate the same before the available judicial forums especially when his initial application did not invoke any response from the employer of his late father. 9. It is settled principle of law that the cause, which is stale and dead cannot be revived by repeated representations. 9. It is settled principle of law that the cause, which is stale and dead cannot be revived by repeated representations. The apex Court has even gone to the extent of laying down that when a particular cause is stale and dead, no direction for disposing of a pending representation can be made because doing so may lead to incongruous situation where direction for deciding representation may revive a cause which in law is dead. The case of Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar reported in (2010)2 SCC 59 of the apex Court can profitably be referred to. 10. In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to raise his grievance before the appropriate judicial forum at the relevant point of time and the fact that repeated representations do not give a fresh cause of action for enabling this Court to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court is unable to assist the petitioner. 11. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in this petition, which accordingly deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. Prashant Sharma with Nirmal Sharma for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents/State.