Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 369 (MP)

Ashish Deshpande v. State of M. P.

2016-05-03

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by son of Late Kashinath Deshpande has been filed in the year 2012 seeking indulgence of this Court in the matter of compassionate appointment on the premise that his father working as UDT in the Middle School, Nagankhedi, District Guna passed away on 16.10.2000 during service in harness leaving behind widow, two daughters and one son (petitioner) and the family was in penury. 2. The application was filed in the year 2000. According to the petitioner, there was protracted correspondence as regards completion of formalities referable to documents placed on record vide Annexures P-2 to P-8. Since application was not decided despite fulfilment of requirement by applicant or his mother, as directed by respondents, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court vide writ petition No.3440/2011 seeking direction from this Court against respondents for decision on his application. This Court commanded the respondents to decide the application within two months vide order dated 20.6.2011. 3. Respondents by the impugned communication have given the petitioner to understand that since his fresh application, Annexure P-12, (dated 13.7.2011) is filed after coming into force the circular of the State Government dated 13.1.2011, the said application cannot merit consideration in view of clause 2 of the circular, which inter alia provided that if the Government servant had died on 13.12.2001 and thereafter for a period of seven years no member of the family could be provided compassionate appointment, he may be given a fresh opportunity to apply for compassionate appointment. As the father of the petitioner had died on 16.10.2000, therefore, the aforesaid facility extended to applicants by virtue of circular dated 13.1.2011 cannot be extended to the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the application was rejected. 4. Taking exception to the aforesaid communication, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the application for compassionate appointment was filed in the year 2000 and by a letter dated 13.7.2011, Annexure P-12, which bears reference of original application, a prayer was made for decision on his application, the said application/reminder could not have been construed to be a fresh application for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Hence, the very premise of the impugned communication is contrary to the facts on record. As such, the circular dated 13.1.2011 has no application to the facts in hand. Hence, the very premise of the impugned communication is contrary to the facts on record. As such, the circular dated 13.1.2011 has no application to the facts in hand. On merits, it is contended that it is evident from Annexures P-3 to P-8, particularly Annexure P-5, whereunder upon completion of formalities petitioner was called upon to accord his consent for providing him compassionate appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade III, as he had applied for the post of Clerk in his application. Consent was given by the petitioner vide letter addressed to District Education Officer, Guna, annexed at page No.15 along with the petition, but still the appointment was not made. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the claim was considered on merits, offer was made, consent was obtained, but appointment letter was not issued, hence, petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected for the aforesaid reason, as communicated in the impugned order. 5. Per contra, Shri Bansal, learned counsel for respondents/State, contends that since petitioner has filed a fresh application, Annexure P-10, which was since not found to be covered by the State Government’s circular dated 13.1.2011, the application was rejected, hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. 6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact the order impugned cannot be justified on the strength of Annexure P-10, as it is an undated application and in fact the application was filed by the petitioner on 13.7.2011, Annexure P-12, duly received in the office of the Collector, which bears the reference of original application seeking compassionate appointment. Further, even otherwise, the circular has no application to the case of the petitioner, as the father of the petitioner had died on 16.10.2000 and the aforesaid circular is applicable only in such cases where the employee had died on or after 13.12.2001, hence, rejection of the claim based upon the aforesaid circular is de hors facts on record and the contention advanced by the counsel for the respondents/State also runs contrary to the facts in hand. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. 8. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. 8. Upon perusal of the documents placed on record and submissions advanced, this Court is of the view that petitioner’s application dated 13.7.2011 was kept pending for consideration longtime and upon completion of the application he was called upon to exercise the option to be appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade III, in place of Clerk for which application was filed. It appears that the respondents did not finalize the claim and the application was tossed from one table to another table, as evident from Annexure P-8 dated 13.6.2003 calling upon him for completion of the formalities, if any, so that the matter may be expedited for appointment. Petitioner cannot be held responsible for inaction on the part of respondents. Rejection of claim for the reason of coming into force of circular dated 13.1.2011, which has no application to the facts of the case in hand for the reason that father of applicant had died on 16.10.2000 and the circular is applicable in case the employee has died after 13.1.2001. Hence, the impugned communication is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with the direction that the petitioner shall file an application alongwith certified copy of the order passed today addressed to respondents No.2 and 3 enclosing the documents Annexures P-3 to P-8 for consideration and upon submission of the application, respondents No.2 and 3 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment with reference to the application dated 13.7.2011 as per the policy in vogue at the relevant point of time, pursuant whereto his application was processed, but not finalized. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within six months from the date of submission of application along with certified copy of the order passed today. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. D.D. Bansal for petitioner; Amit Bansal, Government Advocate for respondents/State.