Madhya Pradesh High Court

Devendra Mali vs The State Of Madhy Pradesh on 5 August, 2021

Author: Sujoy Paul

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,Bench At Indore

                         W.P No.14015/2021
               (Devendra Mali Vs. State of MP and others)           1


INDORE; DATED - 05/08/2021
      Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri     Pradhyumna      Kibe,   learned    counsel    for   the
respondent/State.

Heard.

This petition filed on 30.07.2021 under article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 15.06.2016, whereby the prayer of applicant for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Khargone.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant explained the delay by contending that :-

1. The rejection order gives recurring cause of action to the petitioner and hence, delay is not an absolute hurdle.

2. If compassionate appointment is rejected, as per policy, the petitioner was entitled to get ex-gracia amount. Non-payment of ex-gracia amount gives recurring cause of action to the petitioner.

3. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/state.

4. The petitioner in para 4 of the petition averred that "there is no delay in filling the present W.P.". This averment is factually incorrect. There exists a delay, which is sought to be explained by assigning the aforesaid two reasons.

5. I do not see any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The rejection order dated 15.06.2016 does not provide any recurring cause of action to the petitioner. Similarly, the ex-gracia amount (if payable) would have The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,Bench At Indore

W.P No.14015/2021

been paid in one go and not either in easy installments or month to month or year to year basis. Thus, said non-payment of ex-gracia amount also does not provide a recurring cause of action to the petitioner.

6. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate helping hand to the family in distress. If the petitioner can wait for five years, the very purpose of seeking compassionate appointment is frustrated. This Court in WA No.10/2020 (Managing Director, MP Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitram Company and Ors Vs. Ashiq Shah and Anr.) decided on 07.06.2021 opined as under :-

"[6] This is trite that compassionate appointment is carved out as exception to the general rule. The two well recognized contingencies for grant of compassionate appointment are - (i) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of death of the bread winner while in service;

(ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread winner. (See (2008) 13 SCC 730 V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of U.P.).

[7] Reference may be made to (1998) 2 SCC 412 (State of U.P. Vs. Paras Nath) wherein after taking note of previous judgment reported in (1995) 6 SCC 476 (Union of India Vs. Bhagwansingh), the Apex Court opined as under: -

"6. We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh [(1995) 6 SCC 476: 1996 SCC (L&S) 33: (1995) 31 ATC 736]. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. This Court observed:

"The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,Bench At Indore

W.P No.14015/2021

provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family."

7. No such considerations would normally operate seventeen years after the death of the government servant. The High Court was, therefore, not right in granting any relief to the respondents."

(emphasis supplied) [8] Similarly, in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 6 SCC 481, the Apex Court poignantly held as under:-

"12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service."

(emphasis supplied) [9] It is trite that the basic purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate helping hand to the family in distress. The appointment cannot be directed to be given after more than two decades. There cannot be a reservation of vacancy till a candidate becomes major after number of years. In (2000) 7 SCC 192 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), the Apex Court opined as under: -

"3... This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,Bench At Indore

W.P No.14015/2021

decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."

(emphasis supplied) A Division Bench of this Court took same view in 2003(1) MPLJ 342 [Beni Lal Bamney Vs. Union of India and others] and 2005(4) MPLJ 575 (Riazuddin Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others].

[10] By passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed consideration of respondent No.1 on compassionate ground after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of respondent No.1. In view of principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we are unable to countenance the order of learned writ court. No directions could have been issued for consideration on compassionate ground after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of respondent No.1. The very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment will be defeated if claims of compassionate appointment after decades are entertained."

(emphasis supplied)

7. The same view is followed in WP No.8290/2011 (Deepak Kumar Shakyawar Vs. State of MP and Ors) decided on 18.04.2014. The relevant portion reads as under :-

"Apart from this, in the present case the father of petitioner died in the year 1997. Petitioner submitted application for appointment in 2010. The basic purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to provide helping hand to the family of the deceased Government The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,Bench At Indore

W.P No.14015/2021 (Devendra Mali Vs. State of MP and others) 5

servant. It cannot be done after a decade. There cannot be a reservation of vacancy till a candidate becomes major after number of years. This view is taken by Supreme Court in 2000 (7) SCC 192 [Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others]. The relevant portion reads as under:-

"3..... This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief"

A Division Bench of this Court took same view in 2003 (1) MPLJ 342 [Beni Lal Bamney Vs. Union of India and others] and 2005(4) MPLJ 575 (Riazuddin Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others].

Considering the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. "

(emphasis supplied)

8. In view of the matter, no relief can be granted regarding compassionate appointment. So far claim for ex-gracia amount is concerned, despite delay, I deem it proper to dispose off this petition with following directions:-

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,Bench At Indore

W.P No.14015/2021 (Devendra Mali Vs. State of MP and others) 6

1. The petitioner may prefer a representation for grant of ex-gracia amount by filling appropriate application before the competent authority alongwith copy of this order.

2. In turn, the said authority shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned order within 90 days.

3. If the said authority comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for any such amount, the amount be paid to him within the aforesaid time.