Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 760 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Sunil Khatri

2019-11-05

S.C.SHARMA, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2019
ORDER 1. The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 9.7.2019 passed in W.P. No. 27143/2018 (Sunil v. State of M.P. and others) [Reported in 2019 (III) MPWN 79 ]. 2. Facts of the case reveal that the respondent's father was an employee working as a Driver (Class-IV post) in the Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. On account of his unfortunate death, the respondent applied for grant of compassionate appointment and his application was rejected on 20.9.2016. Thereafter, he preferred a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 327/2017 and this Court has directed the appellants vide order dated 23.6.2017 to consider the case of the respondent in light of the subsequent circular dated 31.8.2016. 3. The case of the respondent was rejected again by an order dated 5.7.2019 holding that the policy dated 31.8.2016 will not be applicable in case of the respondent. 4. It appears that with a defiant attitude inspite of there being an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 327/2017 on 23.6.2017 in which it was categorically ordered that the appellants shall consider the case of the respondent in light of the subsequent circular dated 31.8.2016, the appellants have rejected the case of the respondent by stating that the circular dated 31.8.2016 is not applicable. A contempt petition was filed in the matter i.e. Contempt Petition No. 327/2018 and by an order dated 14.7.2018, the same was disposed of. During the hearing of the contempt petition, it was stated by the contemnors therein that they will be considering the case of the respondent in light of the subsequent circular dated 31.8.2016 as directed vide order dated 23.6.2017 passed in W. P. No. 327/2017. The appellants, in spite of there being a direction by this Court and in spite of the fact that an undertaking was given in the contempt petition have again rejected the case of the respondent by orders dated 5.7.2018 and 6.8.2018. The orders passed by the appellants were subjected to judicial scrutiny and the learned Single Judge has passed the following order :- Having regard to the aforesaid clear direction of this Court, it was not open to the respondents to reject the petitioner's application on the ground that the policy circular dated 31.8.2016 is not applicable. The orders passed by the appellants were subjected to judicial scrutiny and the learned Single Judge has passed the following order :- Having regard to the aforesaid clear direction of this Court, it was not open to the respondents to reject the petitioner's application on the ground that the policy circular dated 31.8.2016 is not applicable. Even otherwise the issue has been decided by the Full Bench in the matter of The State of M.P. and others v. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, reported in 2018(3) JLJ 654 wherein it has been clearly laid down that the policy prevailing at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment would be applicable. It is clear in the present case that the policy circular dated 31.8.2016 was prevailing on the date of consideration of application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 5.7.2018 and 6.8.2018 cannot survive and are hereby set aside. The respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the policy circular dated 31.8.2016 within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Having regard to the fact that in spite of the earlier direction of this Court the petitioner's application has been rejected by the respondents on the unsustainable ground of applicability of policy circular dated 29.9.2014 and the petitioner has been unnecessarily required to approach this Court twice earlier, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the appropriate cost in the present case. Hence, the writ petition is accordingly allowed with cost of Rs. 20,000/-. 5. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon a judgement delivered in the case of The State of MP and others v. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, reported in 2018(3) JLJ 654 (FB) wherein it has been held that the policy prevailing at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment would be applicable and therefore, in the case of the respondent, policy dated 31.8.2016 was applicable. 6. The respondent was compelled to approach this Court thrice and in those circumstances, a cost has also been imposed to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. 6. The respondent was compelled to approach this Court thrice and in those circumstances, a cost has also been imposed to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is based upon a judgement delivered by the Full Bench. No case for any interference is made out. The writ appeal stands dismissed.