Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 138 (MP)

Ashiq Shah v. State of M. P.

2018-02-02

S.C.SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.C. SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition claiming compassionate appointment. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner's father was serving with M.P. Paschim Kshetriya Vidut Vitran Corporation Limited, Ujjain and died on account of an electric shock on 16.06.1996, while on duty After death of petitioner's father, as the petitioner was very young aged about seven years did apply for compassionate appointment. On 06.08.2006, his application was turned down because he was minor. Thereafter, the petitioner again applied to the respondents after his attaining majority and now his application has been turned down in the mechanical manner in the most inhuman way by the respondents holding that a new policy has come. 2. The respondents have filed a reply and they have not denied the fact that the petitioner's father was serving with the respondents and expired because of electric shock while on duty. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioner did applied for grant of compassionate appointment, however, his application was turned down by the respondents vide order dated 14.08.1996, as he was eleven years of age (05.05.1995). 3. The respondents have further stated that on account of financial crunch, which the M.P. Electricity Board was facing, there was complete ban in the matter of compassionate appointment, and thereafter, vide notification dated 29.12.2014 a policy was issued for granting compassionate appointment and relaxation was granted under Clause-1.1-A and 1.1-B to consider the cases with retrospective effect of wards of those employee, who are eligible for grant of compassionate appointment. The policy does include consideration of cases of employees, who died on account of some casualty, electrical accident, motor vehicle accident while on duty etc. 4. The respondents have taken shelter of the new policy and their contention is that it is an old case and they have rightly rejected the petitioner's application. 5. The stand of the respondent, as already stated earlier, reflects a very casual approach towards its own employee, who have served the department with sincerity and devotion. It is true that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but at the same time, the children of those employees, who have lost their sole breadwinner, while serving the employer, cannot be ignored, as has been done in the present case. 6. It is true that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but at the same time, the children of those employees, who have lost their sole breadwinner, while serving the employer, cannot be ignored, as has been done in the present case. 6. On the ground of technicalities the application could not have been rejected, the petitioner did apply after attaining majority and his father expired on account of electric shock while working on duty, no other case can be more deserving case than the present case for grant of compassionate appointment. 7. It is true that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, as has been held by the apex Court time and again but the facts remain that the employer has to act like a model employer and cannot turn down an application on frivolous ground taking a total inhuman approach in the matter. 8. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed. 9. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. The respondents will not reject the claim of the petitioner on account of delay and on the ground that the relevant clause was not applicable, as the policy framed by the respondents is a mere procedural policy for guiding the respondents to consider the cases of grant of compassionate appointment. Certified copy as per rules.