Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 25 (MP)

Ramkishan Baurasi v. State Of M. P. And Others

2020-01-07

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Vandana Kasrekar, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 5/06/2018, passed by the respondent no.3, whereby rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 2. The father of the petitioner namely Shri Nanuram was working as "Line Attendant Grade-II" under the respondent Department. On 4/03/2005, he died in harness. The petitioner being elder member of the family has submitted an application on 29/03/2005 for grant of compassionate appointment along with all requisite documents in the prescribed form and the said application was remained pending. Therefore, he approached to this Court by filing writ petition bearing W.P. No.8668/2013. That during pendency of this writ petition, along with reply, the respondents have filed a copy of the order dated 22/01/2015, which was allowed by this Court. The respondents in their reply has stated that as per the Policy regarding grant of compassionate appointment in 2013 only the cases of death due to Causality, Electrical Accident, death in a vehicle accident during working hour etc, are entitled for compassionate appointment. The Policy of 2013 was thereafter amended on 29/12/2014. 3. In Clause - 7.5 of the amended policy of Compassionate Appointment 2013, there is no bar to consider the cases of employee who died their natural death. Relying on the said clause, the writ petition(W.P. No.8666/2013) was disposed of holding that the policy does not speak that no appointment will be given to the persons who die at home in service and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. However, the respondent no.4 again vide order dated 3/11/2016 has rejected the same application on the same ground which has already been set aside by this Court. The respondent no.4 has not taken care of the observations and directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was again compelled to approach to this Court by preferring W.P. No.227/2017. After considering the arguments of both the parties, the said writ petition was allowed on 30/01/2018 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. However, the respondents again ignored the directions and rejected the case of the petitioner without assigning any justifiable reasons. The petitioner therefore approached to this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria for appointment on the said post. However, the respondents again ignored the directions and rejected the case of the petitioner without assigning any justifiable reasons. The petitioner therefore approached to this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria for appointment on the said post. He submits that there is no bar under the Policy to consider the cases of employees who died their natural death. He submits that the application submitted by the petitioner was kept pending by the respondents without any specific reason. He further submits that inspite of specific directions issued by this Court, the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner in such slip shod manner and, thus, they deliberately committed contempt of Court. 5. The respondents have filed their reply and has stated that the application preferred by the petitioner on compassionate ground was rejected by the respondents as his father died in harness on 4/03/2005 due to natural death. At that time, Policy of 1/09/2000 was imposed. Thereafter, a ban was imposed on the compassionate appointment due to financial crisis. That, after lifting of ban a New Policy of Compassionate Appointment was introduced in the year 2013 by the Company which was made applicable w.e.f. 10/04/2012 and thereafter the Policy was further amended vide Notification dated 29/12/2014, which was made applicable w.e.f. 15/11/2000, but only to those employees, who died in an accident during the course of employment of the Board or Company as the case may be. 6. As per the provisions of aforesaid amended Policy of Compassionate Appointment, 2013, i.e., Clause 1.1(a), 1.1(b) and 3.8, the case of the petitioner is not covered and he is not entitled for the Compassionate Appointment. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected by passing the order dated 5/06/2018. 7. The respondents had relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of The State of M.P. Vs. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, 2019 4 MPLJ 657 in which it has been held that the Policy prevailing at the time of consideration of application would be applicable. At the time of consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner, the Policy of 2014 was in force and as per this Policy, the employees who died in natural death is not entitled for Compassionate Appointment. At the time of consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner, the Policy of 2014 was in force and as per this Policy, the employees who died in natural death is not entitled for Compassionate Appointment. In the light of the aforesaid, he submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In the present case, the father of the petitioner was working as "Line Attendant Grade-II" under the respondent Department.. he died on 4/03/2005 in harness as natural death. The petitioner being elder member in the family has submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 29/03/2005. The application was kept pending before the respondents for years. Therefore, the petitioner has approached to this Court and preferred a writ petition no.8668/2013. During pendency of this writ petition, the respondents vide order dated 22/01/2015 has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has amended the petition in the light of the reply filed by the respondents challenging the said order. This writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, on merits. While remanding the matter, this Court has taken into consideration the Clause - 7.5 of the Policy and observed that the aforesaid clause makes it clear that preference should be given to the cases where employee has died due to Causality, electrical accident, death in a vehicle accident during working hour etc. and the Policy does not speak that no appointment will be given to the persons who die at home in service. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 3/11/2016 again rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the same ground. The petitioner therefore again approached to this Court by filing W.P. No.227/2017. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 30/01/2018 in which this Court has held that the application for compassionate appointment is liable to considered on the basis of the policy prevailing at the death of the employee. Thereafter, the Full Bench of this Court has passed the judgment in the case of The State of M.P. Vs. Thereafter, the Full Bench of this Court has passed the judgment in the case of The State of M.P. Vs. Laxman Prasad Raikwar(supra) in which after considering all the relevant case laws/judgments, the Full Bench of this Court has held that the policy which was prevailing at the time of consideration of application would be applicable for compassionate appointment. In the present case, the father of the petitioner had died on 4/03/2005. Thus, at that time, Policy of 2013 was in force and it was made applicable w.e.f 10/04/2012 and Policy of 2013 was again amended by Notification dated 29/12/2014 by inserting Clause-1.1(a) and 1.1(b). As per this Clause, the employee, who died due to accident, they are entitled to get the compassionate appointment and the respondents had considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the said amended clause. The Full Bench has passed the judgment after the earlier judgment passed in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of The State of M.P. Vs. Laxman Prasad Raikwar(supra), the petitioner has no right to claim appointment on compassionate basis. 10. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.