Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 10 (MP)

Pooja Sahu v. State of M. P.

2024-01-03

RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA

body2024
ORDER 1. Assailing the order dated 24.8.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.26581 of 2021, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her father was in employment of the respondent/department who died in harness on 29.9.2012. The petitioner was minor at the relevant time. After passing her 10th class examination, she applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Initially, she was advised to pass 12th class examination. Hence, after passing 12th class examination, she applied for compassionate appointment on 13.12.2019. Her name did not find place in the select list. She submitted representation to the authorities but of no consequence. Therefore, writ petition was filed which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.8.2023. 3. The learned writ court took note of the fact that the application for compassionate appointment was filed after a lapse of 8 years from the date of death of her father. In the meantime, the petitioner got married and after her marriage, she cannot be treated as a dependent of the deceased/employee. The status of her husband has not been disclosed by her. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a compassion shown to the dependents of the deceased-employee who are under extreme financial crisis on the sudden demise of the sole bread earner. It is an exception to the normal rule of public employment. For grant of compassionate appointment, factum of dependency and penury is required to be considered by the authorities. The relevant scheme which is prevalent at the time of death of employee has to be taken into consideration in terms of the settled provisions of the law. 4. The counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the petitioner was residing with her father and her husband is unemployed but the fact remains that the aforesaid assertion is not a part of the pleadings neither in the writ petition nor in the writ appeal. The cause title of the writ petition does not reflect the name of the husband. No detailed particulars regarding working of the husband is reflected from the pleadings, nor it is mentioned that her husband is unemployed and there is no source of livelihood. 5. The cause title of the writ petition does not reflect the name of the husband. No detailed particulars regarding working of the husband is reflected from the pleadings, nor it is mentioned that her husband is unemployed and there is no source of livelihood. 5. It is not disputed that a married daughter of the deceased-employee can claim compassionate appointment but the fact remains that she has to approach the authorities as well as this Court with clean hands. The compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of recruitment rather being an exception to the normal recruitment method. The factum of dependency and penury are required to be seen for grant of compassionate appointment. The policy prevailing at the time of death of an employee has to be taken note of. The petitioner's father passed away in the year 2012 and at the relevant time, the policy which was prevailing does not contain a provision for grant of compassionate appointment to a married daughter. Even otherwise, in absence of any material on record to show the working of the husband, the factum of dependency and penury cannot be adjudged. 6. The learned writ court took note of all the aspects of the matter and placing reliance upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the writ petition. The counsel for the appellant could not place on record any material to show the factum of dependency and penury. Even the factum of working of the husband has not been disclosed by the petitioner. There is a specific observation made by the writ court that the petitioner has not disclosed regarding working of her husband and despite of the same, the memo of writ appeal is silent about the working of the husband. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the appellant. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the learned writ court has rightly adjudged the facts of the case. 7. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.