Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 790 (MP)

Vaibhav Sharma v. State of M. P.

2017-06-30

NANDITA DUBEY, R.S.JHA

body2017
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner's application seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father died while in service on 31.8.1995, on which date the petitioner was a minor. The petitioner had previously filed an application seeking compassionate appointment which was rejected by the respondents/authorities on 12.1.2015 on the ground that more than seven years had lapsed since the death of the petitioner's father, and as per the prevailing policy of the State, an application seeking compassionate appointment could not be considered thereafter. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2015 rejecting his application for compassionate appointment, had filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.4057/2015. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner brought on record the amended policy relating to compassionate appointment, issued by the State vide Circular dated 29.9.2014, and this Court, keeping the aforesaid circular in mind, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents No. 2 and 3 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the amended circular dated 29.9.2014, and the judgment rendered by the Gwalior Bench of this Court on 12.2.2014 in Writ Appeal No.452/2013. 4. The respondents/authorities, after reconsidering the representation of the petitioner, has rejected the same by the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 which has been communicated to the petitioner on 26.12.2016, against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of clause 3.2 of the policy dated 29.9.2014, the rejection of the petitioner's application seeking compassionate appointment is contrary to law inasmuch as an application seeking compassionate appointment could have been filed and entertained by the authorities within one year from the date of the petitioner attaining majority, and in such circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner's application, in view of the direction issued by this Court to examine the petitioner's case in the light of the policy dated 29.9.2014 deserves to be quashed, and the respondents be directed to grant the petitioner compassionate appointment. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the petitioner's father died on 1.8.1995. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the petitioner's father died on 1.8.1995. The petitioner's date of birth is 10.1.1988 and he attained majority on 10.1.2006. As per clause 3.2 of the policy, even if the same is applied to the petitioner as per the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner could have filed an application seeking compassionate appointment within one year from 10.1.2006, i.e., up to 10.1.2007. As per the documents filed by the petitioner himself, it is apparent that the petitioner, for the first time, approached the authorities on 8.3.2007 after a lapse of one year from the date of attaining majority, and in such circumstances, even if the claim of the petitioner is examined in the light of the circular dated 29.9.2014, no fault can be found with the order rejecting his application seeking compassionate appointment as the same has been filed after a lapse of more than one year of the petitioner attaining majority. 7. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly dismissed.