Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 911 (MP)

Pawan Gumasta v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2018-10-26

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SANJAY DWIVEDI, J. 1. Since pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of parties matter is heard finally. 2. By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that his case for grant of compassionate appointment should be considered in light of the provisions of Policy dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure-P/8) because his case does not fall within the purview of the provisions of Policy dated 29.09.2014 and in view of the instructions issued on 31.08.2016, the petitioner becomes entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment despite the fact that his father was working in the work-charged contingency establishment, died in harness holding the post of Time Keeper. 3. As per the petitioner, his father died on 07.07.2014 while working as a Time Keeper as work-charged contingency establishment in the respondents/Department. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and also filed no objection certificate of his family members apprising the Authority that if compassionate appointment is granted to the petitioner, then they would have no objection. He further submits that the respondents have not taken any action on his request then appropriate application in prescribed format was also submitted on 12.01.2017 (Annexure - P/6) for grant of compassionate appointment but no order has been passed by the Authority. Although, it is apprised to the petitioner that there was a letter of the State Government dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure-P/9) addressing to the Chief Engineer of the Department saying that the Policy of compassionate appointment/instructions issued by the GAD on 31.08.2016 would be applicable to the cases of compassionate appointment arose after 31.08.2016 in pursuance to which, general instructions issued by the office of Chief Engineer to the Executive Engineer on 25.01.2017 (Anneuxre-P/10) clarifying that the Policy dated 31.08.2016 would be made effective to the employees of workcharged contingency establishment, if died after 31.08.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instructions were issued on 31.08.2016 (Annexure-P/8). Clause-2 of the said instructions reads thus:- VERNACULAR MATTER **** In view of aforesaid provisions, Policy dated 29.09.2014 is applicable and according to Clause-3.2 of Policy dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure-P/11), the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment despite the fact that his father was working in the work-charged contingency establishment. Clause-2 of the said instructions reads thus:- VERNACULAR MATTER **** In view of aforesaid provisions, Policy dated 29.09.2014 is applicable and according to Clause-3.2 of Policy dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure-P/11), the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment despite the fact that his father was working in the work-charged contingency establishment. He further submits that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case reported in [ 2010 (4) MPHT 18 (FB)] parties being Bank of Maharashtra & another v. Manoj Kumar Deharia & another, the claim of the petitioner has yet to be considered, the instructions/Policy dated 31.08.2016 would be applicable and accordingly, his claim cannot be rejected saying that the Policy having prospective effect and would be applicable to those who died after 31.08.2016. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the Policy dated 31.08.2016 is prospective in nature and, therefore, the said policy does not cover the case of the petitioner and even otherwise, since the death of the petitioner's father occurred on 07.07.2014 and even after expiry of such a long time when family of the petitioner managed to sustain all financial crises, the basic object of grant of compassionate appointment is frustrated in case the claim of the petitioner is considered. 6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is substance in the contention raised by the petitioner for the reason that the instructions issued on 31.08.2016 very categorically provide that the provisions of the Policy dated 29.09.2014 would be applicable. So far as grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of family member of deceased employee working in the work-charged contingency establishment is concerned, instead of provision for granting lump sum compassionate grant of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lac), the claim of compassionate appointment would be considered. Since the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has not been considered by the respondents so far and no order has been passed rejecting his claim, it is clear that in view of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of Maharashtra (supra), the Policy prevailing on the date of consideration of claim of the compassionate appointment would be applicable and claim should be considered in accordance with the provisions of the said Policy. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in light of the provisions of the Policy dated 31.08.2016 ignoring the fact that his father was working in the work- charged contingency establishment and Policy dated 29.09.2014 would be applicable for the petitioner. The contention of the respondents has no substance that the provisions of Policy is applicable w.e.f. 31.08.2016 and the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependent of employee working in the work-charged contingency establishment and died after 31.08.2016 would only be entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment, is not appropriate and, therefore, the said contention is rejected. 8. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment taking note of the other facts and if he is otherwise found eligible, then appropriate order shall be passed by the Authority within a period of three months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed & disposed of with the aforesaid terms.