Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 30 (MP)

Babita Sahu v. Bank of Baroda

2017-01-06

SUJOY PAUL

body2017
ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the circular dated 12.11.2007, whereby the respondents have decided to provide the benefit of ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased employee. 2. Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that petitioner's husband Late Ramlal Sahu, died in harness on 29.08.2007. As per the policy dated 12.11.2007, the respondents have offered exgratia amount to the petitioner, whereas it is legal, constitutional and fundamental right of the petitioner to get her case considered for compassionate appointment. It is urged that impugned circular dated 12.11.2007 is arbitrary and ex-gratia amount is not sufficient to discharge the financial obligation. The earlier scheme whereby compassionate appointment was given, was more beneficial. 3. Prayer is opposed by Mr. Mainderetta, learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that petitioner does not have any such right of consideration for compassionate appointment. He submits that the necessary benefits were worked out as per the scheme in vogue and petitioner can take the benefits of the same. 4. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 6. This is settled legal position that the compassionate appointment is not a regular source of recruitment. It is an exception to general rule, that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merits, by open invitation, providing equal opportunity to eligible persons to participate in selection. I am unable to hold that petitioner has any legal, vested, fundamental or constitutional right to get her case considered for compassionate appointment. The question of consideration of the petitioner for compassionate appointment depends on the policy which is applicable. No benefits can be claimed on the basis of an abolished scheme. In 2010 (11) SCC 661 [State Bank of India & another v. Rajkumar], the Apex Court has taken the said view. 7. In 2014 (13) SCC 583 [MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh], it is further held that the right of consideration for benefits can be claimed as per the policy in vogue. The scheme which is in force on the date of consideration of the employee is applicable. 7. In 2014 (13) SCC 583 [MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh], it is further held that the right of consideration for benefits can be claimed as per the policy in vogue. The scheme which is in force on the date of consideration of the employee is applicable. The same view is taken by the full bench of this Court in the case reported in 2010 (3) MPLJ 213 [Bank of Maharashtra & another v. Manoj Kumar Deharia & another]. This is recently followed by this Court in 2016 (1) MPLJ 634 [Pinki Yadav v. State of M.P. & others]. In Chakrawarti Singh (supra), the Apex Court followed the principles laid down in the case of Rajkumar (supra) and held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a the matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment. The consideration and the benefits arising thereto are based on the scheme which is applicable at the relevant time. 8. The petitioner is unable to show as to how the policy in question is arbitrary or unconstitutional in nature. Hence, I am unable to hold that the policy which provides ex-gratia benefits is arbitrary or capricious in nature. Hence, no interference is required on the said policy. 9. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the parties contended that because of pendency of this petition, the petitioner did not accept ex-gratia benefits flowing from the scheme in question. In this view of the matter, I am only inclined to direct that if petitioner prefers an application seeking ex-gratia benefits before the respondents, the respondents shall consider the said claim and extend the necessary benefits to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of communication of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.