Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 536 (MP)

Shweta Shakya (ku. ) v. State of M. P.

2019-07-24

VISHAL MISHRA

body2019
ORDER 1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26th of May 2017 passed by respondent No. 3 whereby the application filed for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that ground on which application is rejected is in violation of the directives contained in the policy dated 29th September, 2014. It is further contended that Clause 3.2 of the said policy has been violated, therefore the action of the respondent is unsustainable in the eyes of law and against the settled principles of law. Thus, he has prayed for quashment of the order. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after death of petitioner's father on 24th of November, 2007 while in the employment of the respondent department, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment in proper format on 3rd of October 2016 alleging that she has attained majority on 1st of August 2016 and immediately thereafter she has filed the application. The said application was considered and was erroneously rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Clause-3 of the policy which provides that application for compassionate appointment by a minor be filed within a period of one year from the date he or she attains majority. He has pointed out that she reached the age of majority on 1.8.2016 and application for compassionate appointment was filed on 3.10.2016. Thus, respondent has wrongly rejected the application taking into consideration the seven years rider for consideration of application and therefore he has prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 4. learned government advocate has contended that clause 3.2 of the policy dated 29th of September, 2014 is of no help to the petitioner because that is subsequent provision. Wife of the deceased being the first claimant should have moved an application immediately for her appointment or should have intimated the respondent department that she does not want compassionate appointment rather appointment be given to her daughter on her attaining majority. Wife of the deceased being the first claimant should have moved an application immediately for her appointment or should have intimated the respondent department that she does not want compassionate appointment rather appointment be given to her daughter on her attaining majority. He has drawn attention of this Court to clause 2.1 and 2.2 of the policy which reads as under : ^^2- vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds fy, vkfJr lnL; ls rkRi;Z ¼Øekuqlkj½ 2-1 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh iRuh] vFkok iw.kZr% vkfJr ifrA 2-2 e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr@iRuh }kjk ;ksX;rk u j[kus vFkok Lo;a vuqdaik fu;qfDr u ysuk pkgs rks mlds }kjk ukekafdr iq= ;k vfookfgr iq=hA** He has further contented that no such document is on record to show that the wife has ever applied for compassionate appointment, however, on the contrary a letter dated 5th of January, 2008 was forwarded by the principal of the school to the petitioner's mother for submitting an application for compassionate appointment but there was no response and therefore after lapse of 7 years the respondent authorities were justified in passing the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is settled law regarding compassionate appointment that it is not provided as a matter of right. However, it is special provision which has been incorporated just to help the family of the diseased employee who has passed away during his service tenure. The object of grant of compassionate appointment is just to overcome the hardships being faced by the family members of the deceased employee, however, once the family has survived for a considerable period, the requirement for grant of compassionate appointment is over. Granting of compassionate appointment after considerable period amounts to frustrating the object of grant of such appointments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India and ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 469 has held as under : "It can be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years." 7. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years." 7. In the present case the father of the petitioner has expired on 24th of November 2007 while he was in service in respondent department. The petitioner was minor at that time and the wife of the deceased has not applied for compassionate appointment despite intimation issued to her by letter dated 5th of January, 2008. Further, no step was taken by the wife to intimate the department that in place of her, her daughter may be granted compassionate appointment. The petitioner attained majority on 1st of August, 2016 and immediately thereafter on 3rd of October, 2016 application has been filed in the proper format to the respondent No. 4, the Principal of the school, along with the required documents. The respondents have taken into consideration clause 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the said policy and has held that the first claimant was wife of the deceased employee and despite intimation she has not applied for compassionate appointment. She did not even bother to intimate the respondent department that she is willing to get compassionate appointment for her daughter. 8. From the perusal of Annexure P-1, it is apparent that respondent authority has taken into consideration the provisions to clause 3.2 of the policy for rejecting application which reads as under : ^^lHkh izdkj ds vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds izdj.kksa esa 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q fnukad ls 07 ¼lkr½ o"kZ rd in miyC/k gksus ij gh mlds vkfJr dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxhA ijUrq e`r 'kkldh; lsod dh ;fn izFke larku e`R;q dh frfFk dks vo;Ld gksosa rks dsoy ,slh izFke larku dks o;Ld gksus dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ rd vuqdaik fu;qfDr vU;Fkk ik= gksus dh n'kk esa iznku dh tk ldsxhA** 9. From the perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is clear that a minor son and daughter within one year of attaining majority may apply for grant of compassionate appointment. The aforesaid aspect has not been dealt with by the respondent authorities. From the perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is clear that a minor son and daughter within one year of attaining majority may apply for grant of compassionate appointment. The aforesaid aspect has not been dealt with by the respondent authorities. Further clause 1.1 of the policy says that compassionate appointment will be granted to one member of the deceased employee which reads as under : ^^1-1 fdlh 'kkldh; lsod dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gksus ij muds vkfJr ,d lnL; dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr nh tkosxhA** 10. Thus, it is not a case where deliberately the petitioner has caused the delay in filing the application, however, within two months of attaining majority, she has applied for grant of compassionate appointment. She has filed marks-sheet of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 1st August. 1998. Thus, she attained majority on 1st August 2016 and immediately thereafter on 3rd October, 2016 she has filed application for grant of compassionate appointment. Thus, the respondent department has committed an error in not properly considering the clauses of the policy regarding grant of compassionate appointment. The clauses are required to be read jointly and harmoniously. 11. Therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. 12. Respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and pass a self contained speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if otherwise the petitioner is found eligible for compassionate appointment, the same may be granted within the aforesaid period. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.