Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1216 (MP)

Karan Singh v. State of M. P.

2022-09-29

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2022
ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.8.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground that when the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment in the year 2015 there was no provision for compassionate appointment in the respondent establishment and the policy for compassionate appointment came in the establishment of the respondent No.2 and 3 with effect from 1.10.2019. 2. Facts of the case in nut shell is that the petitioner's father late Shri Mansingh died in harness on 15.5.2015 while working as driver in the respondent No.3 establishment. After the death of his father petitioner applied to the respondent No.3 for appointment on compassionate appointment in place of his father. The respondent No.3 informed Addl. Collector, Ujjain that as no post of driver in backward class is vacant and, therefore, the petitioner was directed to wait for seven years. It was informed vide letter dated 30.9.2015 asking the respondent No.2 to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Peon/Clerk. Thereafter nothing has been done. After five years, by the impugned order dated 16.8.2021 the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate appointment in the establishment of respondent No.2 and 3 and the policy for compassionate appointment came only in force with effect from 1.10.2019. On this ground petitioner's application was rejected by the respondent No.2. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondent No.2 is erroneous because of number of persons were granted compassionate appointment prior to 2019 in reference to the circular of the GAD. He has placed copy of the order dated 4.11.2011 passed by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation appointing one smt.Shobha Bagal on compassionate basis. He has also filed copy of the order dated 8.6.2015 passed by Managing Director of the Corporation of the respondent Corporation appointment one Jayant Nigam on compassionate basis in reference to GAD Ciricvular No. C/3-12/2013/1/3 Bhopal dated 29th September, 2014. The petitioner has further placed copy of the order dated 8.6.2015 passed by the Managing director of the respondent Corporation appointing one Shri Rajesh Girwal on compassionate basis in reference to GAD Circular dated 29.9.2013. 4. The petitioner has further placed copy of the order dated 8.6.2015 passed by the Managing director of the respondent Corporation appointing one Shri Rajesh Girwal on compassionate basis in reference to GAD Circular dated 29.9.2013. 4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the appointment orders of the other identically placed persons, it is manifest that the persons were given compassionate appointment by the respondent Corporation prior to 2019 in reference to GAD Circulars, therefor, the contention of counsel for petitioner that the respondent Corporation has adopted Circular of the GAD for compassionate appointment appears to be correct. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the decision taken by the respondent dated 16.8.2021 rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that there was no policy for compassionate appointment on the date of presentation of the application and the policy for compassionate appointment came only with effect from 1.10.2019 is quashed. The respondent Managing Director of the respondent Corporation is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law keeping in view the fact that identically placed persons namely Shobha Bahal, Jayant Nigam and Shri Rajesh Girwal were given appointment by the Corporation prior to 2019. The petitioner is granted opportunity to file fresh detailed and comprehensive representation along with the copy of the order passed today and copy of the appointment orders dated 4.11.2021, 8.6.2015 and 8.6.2015within a period of 15 days from today and if such representation is filed within the said period, the Managing Director shall consider the same afresh in accordance with law and shall take a decision within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and disposed off.