Deepak Taigore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1194 MP

                               1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        WP-6432-2021
        Deepak Taigore Vs. Principal Secretary and others

Gwalior, Dated : 01.04.2021

      Shri Nitin Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Deepak Khot, Government Advocate for the State.

      This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed against the order dated 17.12.2020, by which the

application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate

ground has been rejected.

      It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner has

died in harness on 25.04.2011 and on 08.10.2016 the petitioner has

attained the age of 18 years. In the year 2016, the mother of the

petitioner approached the authorities for releasing the dues of her late

husband. The petitioner preferred an application for grant of

appointment on compassionate ground on 30.09.2019 and the said

application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.12.2020

on the ground that the petitioner does not hold the minimum

qualification for the post of Contract Teacher. Further, the application

was filed beyond the period of seven years.

      Challenging the order passed by the authorities, it is submitted

by the counsel for the petitioner that the Division Bench of this Court

by order dated 29.01.2018 passed in the case of Nisar Ahmed Vs.

State of MP and others (W.A. No. 326/2015) has held that the Policy

which was in vogue at the time of death of employee would be
                                2
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        WP-6432-2021
        Deepak Taigore Vs. Principal Secretary and others

applicable, whereas the case of the petitioner has been considered on

the basis of the Policy which was in vogue on the date of

consideration of the application, which is contrary to law. Further, if

the petitioner was not eligible for his appointment on the post of

Contract Teacher, then his case should have been considered for

appointment on the Class-IV post.

      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

      So far as the question of applicability of the Policy for

appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, the question is

not more res integra. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of State

of MP and others Vs. Laxman Prasad Raikwar reported in 2018 (4)

MPLJ 657, has held that the Policy which was in vogue on the date of

consideration of the application would be applicable. Although it is

the case of the petitioner that the respondents should have considered

his application in the light of the Policy, which was in vogue on the

date of death of his father is concerned, even if his contention is

accepted still the petitioner would not be entitled for his appointment

on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, the Policy

dated 18.08.2008 was in vogue on the date of death of father of the

petitioner. Clause 7.1 of the said Policy reads as under:-

7-1 ;fn fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa dksbZ ik= O;Ld lnL; ugha gS rks 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q fnukad ls 7 o"kZ rd dh vof/k esa o;Ld gksus ij vuqdaik

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-6432-2021 Deepak Taigore Vs. Principal Secretary and others

fu;qfDr nh tk ldsaxhA blds i'pkr ;fn og o;Ld gksrk gS rks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA

Thus, if the claim of the petitioner is considered in the light of

the Policy, which was in vogue on the date of death of father of the

petitioner, then it is clear that the claim of the minor dependents could

have been considered provided he attains majority within a period of

seven years from the date of death of government employee. Thus, it

is clear that as per the Policy dated 18.08.2008, the application for

compassionate appointment could not have been considered at all

after lapse of seven years from the date of death of the employee.

However, in the light of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this

Court in the case of Laxman Prasad Raikwar (Supra), the Policy

dated 29.09.2014 would be applicable to the case of the petitioner.

Clause 3.2 of the Policy reads as under:-

3-2 lHkh izdkj ds vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds izdj.kksa esa 'kkldh; lsod dh e``R;q fnukad ls 07 ¼lkr½ o"kZ rd in miyC/k gksus ij gh mlds vkfJr dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxh % ijUrq e``r 'kkldh; lsod dh ;fn izFke larku e``R;q dh frfFk dks vo;Ld gksos rks dsoy ,slh izFke larku dks o;Ld gksus dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ rd vuqdaik fu;qfDr vU;Fkk ik= gksus dh n'kk esa iznku dh tk ldsxhA

According to this Policy, the appointment on compassionate

ground can be granted only if the aspirant is holding minimum

qualification for his appointment. Clause 3.1 of the Policy dated

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-6432-2021 Deepak Taigore Vs. Principal Secretary and others

29.09.2014 reads as under:-

3-1 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj dk lnL;

vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq rHkh ik= gksxk tc 'kkldh; lsok esa fu;qfDr ds fy, vko';d vgZrk /kkj.k djrk gksA

It is not disputed by the petitioner that the petitioner is not

holding the minimum qualification for his appointment on the post of

Contract Teacher. However, the contention of the petitioner is that

since the petitioner was not holding minimum qualification then the

respondents should have considered the case of the petitioner for his

appointment on Class-IV post.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

petitioner.

As per Clause 3.2 of the Policy dated 29.09.2014, the eldest

child of the deceased employee can be granted appointment on

compassionate ground provided he has made an application within

one year from the date of attaining the majority or from the date of

acquiring minimum qualification. Undisputedly, the petitioner had

made an application for appointment on compassionate ground on

30.09.2019. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is

08.10.1998. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner attained majority on

07.10.2016. According to the petitioner, he had passed his 10th

examination in the year 2014. Thus, on the date of attaining the

majority, the petitioner had already acquired minimum qualification

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-6432-2021 Deepak Taigore Vs. Principal Secretary and others

for his appointment on Class-IV post. Under these circumstances, the

petitioner should have preferred an application within one year from

the date of attaining the majority, i.e., up to 07.10.2017, whereas as

already pointed out, the petitioner moved an application for

appointment on compassionate ground on 30.09.2019, which was

beyond the period of one year as required Clause 3.2 of the Policy.

Under these circumstances, when the application filed by the

petitioner was not within one year as provided under Clause 3.2 of the

Policy, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents did

not commit any mistake by not considering the claim of the petitioner

for Class-IV post. Even otherwise, the petitioner had never expressed

that he is willing to accept any Class-IV post also.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that no case is made out for entertaining this writ petition.

It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2021.04.03 16:37:50 +05'30'