The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra denied a man’s request for compassionate appointment after 35 years, despite the fact that he was not at fault for the delay. (SOMNATH SONWANI VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.)
Facts of the case
The present appeal was filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No.5643 of 2016.
The case of the petitioner was that he sought for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the fact that his father died in harness in the year 1987. He became major in the year 2003. Immediately thereafter he filed an application before the authorities at Chhatisgarh. After reorganization of the State, the concerned authority fell within the State of M.P. Thereafter the application was rejected.
The learned Single Judge while considering the plea of the petitioner came to the view that since the death of the father of the petitioner took place in 1987 there is no reason as to how the compassionate appointment could be granted after a lapse of 35 years.
Courts Observation and order
The bench taking note of the judgment passed by the single judge bench remarked, "On considering the reason, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same. Even though it cannot be said that the petitioner should be blamed for the long period of delay, however, the fact remains that for the last 35 years he has remained without a job. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and others Vs. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 299 has held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner. The same cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
The bench dismissing the appeal remarked, "Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, since in the instant case, a huge period of 35 years has elapsed, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
