Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 177 (MP)

Munni Devi v. State of M. P.

2016-03-01

R.S.JHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.S. Jha, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are widow and son of late Prem Singh Rajput claiming settlement of claims of the deceased employee in respect of pension, gratuity, medical insurance and all other claims and for disbursement of the same with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The petitioners have also prayed that respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.2 by treating the deceased employee as employee of regular establishment. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the husband of petitioner No.1 was initially appointed in the establishment of respondents on 24.11.1981 as a Driver on daily wages. It is submitted that subsequently, he was confirmed and was granted regular pay scale. Thereafter, his services were discontinued on the Smt. Munni Devi and Anr. v. The State of M.P. & Ors. ground that they were no longer required. It is submitted that thereafter the husband of petitioner No.1 Prem Singh Rajput filed proceedings before the Labour Court which were allowed and the respondents were directed to reinstate him. It is urged that thereafter respondents reinstated the employee as a daily wager and, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file WP No. 4043/2007 (S) before this Court praying for regularization, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2011 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . It is also brought on record that as the order passed by this Court was not complied with, the husband of petitioner No.1 had filed a contempt petition, which was also disposed of with liberty on 10.07.2013. 3. It is submitted by petitioners' counsel that the petitioner's husband died on 16.06.2015, thereafter, petitioners approached the authorities Smt. Munni Devi and Anr. v. The State of M.P. & Ors. seeking release of his retrial and pensionary dues and for granting compassionate appointment. However, as the claims of the petitioners went unconsidered, they have filed the present petition before this Court claiming the aforesaid reliefs. 4. v. The State of M.P. & Ors. seeking release of his retrial and pensionary dues and for granting compassionate appointment. However, as the claims of the petitioners went unconsidered, they have filed the present petition before this Court claiming the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it is apparent that the deceased employee was removed from services and, thereafter, he approached the Labour Court in which he himself admitted that he was a daily wager and on that account the Labour Court vide order dated 04.08.1998 had directed reinstatement of the petitioner's husband, pursuant to which, he was reinstated as a daily wager/ Driver and this fact is also evident from a perusal of Annexure P/7 filed by the petitioners along with the petition. It is also apparent that during his life time, the deceased employee was well aware of the fact that he was a daily wager and had acknowledged that status. It is also evident from the perusal of the order of WP No. 4043/2007 (S) filed by the petitioner's husband before this Court that petitioner's husband acknowledged his status as a Smt. Munni Devi and Anr. v. The State of M.P. & Ors. daily wager and had filed a petition before this Court claiming regularisation and grant of regular pay scale which was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider the case of petitioner's husband for his regularization. 5. In view of the aforesaid documents that have been filed by the petitioners themselves acknowledging the status of the deceased employee, it is apparent that the status of the petitioner's husband was that of a daily wage employee and in such circumstances the petitioners' claim regarding disbursement of arrears of pension, gratuity, medical insurance etc. of deceased employee is legally untenable and misconceived. Quite apart from the above, as the petitioner's husband was a daily wager, the petitioner No.2 is also not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment in view of the policy of the State Government. 6. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners being meritless is hereby dismissed.