Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 487 (MP)

Bhavesh Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025-08-13

ASHISH SHROTI

body2025
ORDER : ASHISH SHROTI, J. These writ petition have been filed challenging the order passed by the respondents thereby rejecting the request of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no policy prevalent for grant of appointment to the dependents of a permanently classified/Sthai Karmi employee. W.P.No.13841/2023 2. The petitioner in this case is the son of one Madhvendra Sharma, who was initially engaged as daily wager in the Public Health Engineering Department. He was permanently classified as skilled worker on 31.03.2016. He expired on 17.12.2021 and, thereafter, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. The application has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the compassionate appointment can be given only to the dependent of a regular/work-charge employee and the policy is not applicable to the dependents of permanently classified employee. W.P.No.18817/2023 3. The petitioners in this case are the widow and the son of one Motiram @ Motilal Jatav, who was also permanently classified on the post of Gangman vide order dated 02.03.2005 (Annexure P/2). He expired on 29.01.2023, whereupon the petitioners made an application for grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner no.2 on 11.04.2023 (Annexure P/4). This application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that Clause - 11 of the policy dated 29.09.2014 specifically prohibits grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of an employee working on daily wages. W.P.No.21584/2022 4. The petitioner in this case is the son of one Saleem Khan, who was initially engaged as Ward Boy. He was conferred with the status of Sthai Karmi w.e.f. 01.09.2016 as an unskilled labour vide order dated 28.10.2017. The status of Sthai Karmi was conferred pursuant to the policy of the State Government dated 07.10.2016. Saleem Khan expired on 01.02.2021, whereupon the petitioner made an application on 04.02.2021 for grant of compassionate appointment. This application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 08.02.2021, again, on the ground that the policy for grant of compassionate appointment is not applicable to the dependents of employee working as Sthai Karmi. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three cases, commonly and strongly, relied upon an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 24.06.2022 in W.P. No.11742/2021. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three cases, commonly and strongly, relied upon an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 24.06.2022 in W.P. No.11742/2021. It is their contention that this Court has already held in the aforesaid case that the policy dated 29.09.2014 would be applicable in the case of death of an employee classified as un-skilled/semi-skilled/skilled employee under circular dated 07.10.2016. 6. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.21584/2022 also submitted that in the similar circumstances, the respondent - University has granted compassionate appointment to the son of one Brij Narayan Sharma. The copy of the order of compassionate appointment in this regard is placed on record as Annexure P/5. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the policy for grant of compassionate appointment floated vide circular dated 29.09.2014 is applicable only in cases of a regular/work-charge employees. It is their contention that the deceased employees in all these cases were either permanently classified under The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, or under the circular dated 07.10.2016. Thus, the deceased employee in these cases were neither regular or work-charge employee and, therefore, there is no policy available for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent University in W.P. No.21584/2022 also submitted that Brij Narayan Sharma was infact a regular employee in the College and, therefore, he was covered under the policy for grant of compassionate appointment. It is also pointed out that the petitioner in this case has already been paid Rs.2 lakh towards ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment, which he has accepted without any objection and, therefore, now he cannot claim compassionate appointment. 9. Considered the arguments and perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased employee in all these three cases were either permanently classified under The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, or under the policy of the State Government dated 07.10.2016. The petitioners in these cases have placed heavy reliance of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashish Soni Vs. Rani Durgavati (W.P.No.11742/2021 ). The petitioners in these cases have placed heavy reliance of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashish Soni Vs. Rani Durgavati (W.P.No.11742/2021 ). In the said case, the Court held in para 20 as under : Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, this court is of the considered view that once a daily rated employee is classified as 'Sthai karmi' by virtue of Clause- 2 of the Circular dated 07-10-2016, he is treated to be no more a daily rated employee, as they have been classified as Un-skilled/Semi- Skilled/Skilled and against a particular pay-scale and therefore, there is no impediment as regards consideration of application for compassionate appointment of dependents of such deceased employee, who are classified as 'Sthai karmi', therefore, the order impugned on the face of it, is non est and accordingly deserves to be set aside. In view of above, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis is required to be re-considered. Resultantly, the order impugned 01-02-2021 (Annexure P/10) is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate basis in the light of provisions of the policy applicable within a period of 90 days from production of the certified copy of this order. 11. In the case of Ashish Soni (supra), this Court has held that once the employee is classified as Sthai Karmi under circular dated 07.10.2016, he is no more a daily rated employee and, therefore, the application of his dependent for compassionate appointment is required to be considered under the policy, dated 29.09.2014, made for regular/work-charge employee. However, the further question which ought to have been considered was, whether conferral of status of Sthai Karmi or for that matter of a permanently classified employee, would render his equal status of that of a regular employee? 12. Before proceeding further, it is to be observed here that the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ashish Soni (Supra) has been challenged by the State Government before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1268/2022. Since the similar issue is pending before the Division Bench, this Court, on 01.08.2021, adjourned the hearing of these cases awaiting decision of the writ appeal. Since the similar issue is pending before the Division Bench, this Court, on 01.08.2021, adjourned the hearing of these cases awaiting decision of the writ appeal. However, today when the cases again came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners pressed for hearing of these petitions on merits on the ground that the issue is already settled in the case of Ashish Soni (supra). Accordingly, these cases are heard finally. 13. The issue to be considered in these cases, in nutshell, is as to whether these employees can be treated to be regular employees in view of their permanent classification? 14. Exactly similar issue was under consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwini Ray & others, reported in (2017)3 SCC 436 . The extract of relevant paragraphs dealing with this issue are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "18. Insofar as the petitioners before us are concerned they have been classified as “permanent”. For this reason, we advert to the core issue, which would determine the fate of these cases viz. whether these employees can be treated as “regular” employees in view of the aforesaid classification? In other words, with their classification as “permanent”, do they stand regularised in service? 19. For this purpose, we would first like to refer to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder known as the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. Section 3(c) of the Act defines “Standing Orders” and as per Section 6, the State Government may, by notification, apply standard Standing Orders to such class of undertakings and from such date as may be specified therein. Section 21 empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the said Act which are required to be notified. It empowers the State Government to frame Standard Standing Orders as well. It is in exercise of powers under Section 21(1) of the Act that the State Government has framed the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Annexure to these Rules contains standard Standing Orders for all undertakings in the State. Standing Order 2 of this order enumerates classification of employees which has already been reproduced above. Annexure to these Rules contains standard Standing Orders for all undertakings in the State. Standing Order 2 of this order enumerates classification of employees which has already been reproduced above. As per this classification, an employee would be known as “permanent employee” who has completed six months' satisfactory service in a clear vacancy in one or more posts whether on probation or otherwise or a person whose name has been entered in the muster roll and who is given a ticket of “permanent employee”. It follows from the above that merely by putting in six months' satisfactory service, an employee can be treated as “permanent employee”. Rights which would flow to different categories of employees including “permanent employee” are not stipulated in these Rules or even in the parent Act. It can be gathered from Rule 11 of the said Rules, which relates to termination of employment, that in case of a “permanent employee” one month's notice or wages for one month in lieu of notice is required when the employment of a “permanent employee” is to be terminated. On the other hand, no such notice or wages in lieu thereof is needed to be given to any other category of employees. Additional obligation cast on the employer is to record reasons for termination of service in writing and communicate the same to the employee. 20. With this, we advert to the question posed above. In the first blush, this question appears to be somewhat puzzling, as to how such a question can arise because normally an employee who is given the designation of “permanent employee” should be treated as “regular employee” as well. However, this puzzle vanishes when we examine the Standing Orders, Acts and Rules in question under which designation of “permanent employee” is acquired. Fortunately for us, we are not trading on a virgin territory. 21. This Court has already examined the issue in the context of these very Standing Orders of Madhya Pradesh. However, this puzzle vanishes when we examine the Standing Orders, Acts and Rules in question under which designation of “permanent employee” is acquired. Fortunately for us, we are not trading on a virgin territory. 21. This Court has already examined the issue in the context of these very Standing Orders of Madhya Pradesh. In Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority [Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority, (2005) 1 SCC 639 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 154] , this Court analysed the standard Standing Order in question and held that permanent classification does not amount to regularisation, inasmuch as it was noted that the matter relating to the recruitment is governed by a separate statute, as can be seen from the following discussion therein : (SCC pp. 651-52, paras 28 & 31) “28. The 1961 Act provides for classification of employees in five categories. The 1973 Act, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly mandates that all posts should be sanctioned by the State Government and all appointments to the said cadre must be made by the State Government alone. Even the appointments to the local cadre must be made by the Authority. The said provisions were not complied with. It is accepted that no appointment letter was issued in favour of the appellants. Had the appointments of the appellants been made in terms of the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules framed thereunder, the respondent Authority was statutorily enjoined to make an offer of appointment in writing which was to be accepted by the appellants herein. Who made the appointments of the appellants to the project or other works carried on by the Authority is not known. Whether the person making an appointment had the requisite jurisdiction or not is also not clear. We have noticed hereinbefore that in the case of Om Prakash Mondloi, the CEO made an endorsement to the effect that he may be tried in daily wages and should be entrusted with the work of progress collection of ODA work. The said order is not an “offer of appointment” by any sense of the term. *** 31. The Standing Orders governing the terms and conditions of service must be read subject to the constitutional limitations wherever applicable. Constitution being the suprema lex, shall prevail over all other statutes. The said order is not an “offer of appointment” by any sense of the term. *** 31. The Standing Orders governing the terms and conditions of service must be read subject to the constitutional limitations wherever applicable. Constitution being the suprema lex, shall prevail over all other statutes. The only provision as regards recruitment of the employees is contained in Order 4 which merely provides that the manager shall within a period of six months, lay down the procedure for recruitment of employees and notify it on the noticeboard on which Standing Orders are exhibited and shall send copy thereof to the Labour Commissioner. The matter relating to recruitment is governed by the 1973 Act and the 1987 Rules. In the absence of any specific directions contained in the Schedule appended to the Standing Orders, the statute and the statutory rules applicable to the employees of the respondent shall prevail.” *** 24. It is, thus, somewhat puzzling as to whether the employee, on getting the designation of “permanent employee” can be treated as “regular” employee. This answer does not flow from the reading of the Standing Orders Act and Rules. In common parlance, normally, a person who is known as “permanent employee” would be treated as a regular employee but it does not appear to be exactly that kind of situation in the instant case when we find that merely after completing six months' service an employee gets right to be treated as “permanent employee”. Moreover, this Court has, as would be noticed now, drawn a distinction between “permanent employee” and “regular employee”. *** 26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a “permanent employee” has right to receive pay in the graded pay scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments, etc. in the pay scale." 15. The similar issue arose before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Israt Mohammed vs. State of M.P. & others (W.P. No.1482/2014), wherein the petitioner was claiming the benefit of retiral dues at par with regular employee, on account of his permanent classification. in the pay scale." 15. The similar issue arose before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Israt Mohammed vs. State of M.P. & others (W.P. No.1482/2014), wherein the petitioner was claiming the benefit of retiral dues at par with regular employee, on account of his permanent classification. Learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition holding that once the petitioner therein acquired the status of permanent employee, the respondents are bound to pay him pension and other retiral dues treating him as a regular employee. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the State of Madhya Pradesh before the Division Bench in the case of State of M.P. & others Vs. Ishrat Mohammad (W.A. No.226/22018). Placing reliance upon the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (Spura), the Division Bench set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner therein cannot be treated to be a regular employee. 16. The ratio of the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (Spura) would be equally applicable to the employees who have been conferred with status of Sthai Karmi by virtue of policy, dated 07.10.2016, inasmuch as the said status is conferred on him by virtue of his working on daily wages only. On conferral of such status, the employee is only entitled to the benefits which flows from circular dated 07.10.2016. Apparently, benefit of compassionate appointment to its dependent is not included in aforesaid policy. 17. In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law by the Apex Court as also by Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that an employee who has been permanently classified under the Standing Order or as Sthai Karmi under the policy, dated 07.10.2016, is not a regular employee. Thus, it has to be held that the deceased employees in these cases were not the regular employees of the State Government. Their permanent classification would entitle them to certain benefits as specified under the Standing Order or the policy, dated 07.10.2016. However, by no stretch of imagination, they can be treated at par with the regular employees of the State Government. 18. The aforesaid legal position was not placed before the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ashish Soni (supra). Their permanent classification would entitle them to certain benefits as specified under the Standing Order or the policy, dated 07.10.2016. However, by no stretch of imagination, they can be treated at par with the regular employees of the State Government. 18. The aforesaid legal position was not placed before the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ashish Soni (supra). Thus, the judgment rendered in the case of Ashish Soni (supra) is infact per-incuriam inasmuch as the same has been passed in ignorance of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) as also the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ishrat Mohammad (supra). 19. Resultantly, this Court is of the view that the policy, dated 29.09.2014, meant for dependents of regular/work-charge employees is not available for the dependents of permanently classified/Sthai karmi. 20. The law with regard to grant of compassionate appointment is well settled. It always flows from the policy for grant of compassionate appointment. In other words if there is no policy prevalent for grant of compassionate appointment, the dependents of the deceased employee cannot claim that they be appointed on compassionate ground. Thus, in the present cases, since there is no policy prevalent for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioners, the respondents were justified in rejecting their application. 21. No interference is, therefore, warranted with the orders passed by the respondent authorities. Consequently, the impugned orders are upheld and the petitions are dismissed.