Madhya Pradesh High Court
Managing Director Madhya Pradesh ... vs Ashiq Shah on 7 June, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 W.A. No.10/2020
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WRIT APPEAL NO.10/2020
Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran
Company & Ors.
Vs.
Ashiq Shah & another
Indore, Dated:07.06.2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri. Madhusudan Dwivedi, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
With the consent, finally heard.
ORDER
In this intra Court Appeal filed under Section 2(1)of the Madhya
Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005, the appellant/department has challenged the order of writ court
dated 30/9/2019 passed in WP No.6510/2015 whereby the Court has set
aside the impugned order dated 23/5/2016 whereby claim of respondent
No.1 for compassionate appointment was rejected. In turn, department
was directed to consider the case of respondent No.1 and pass necessary
orders within three months. The department was prevented to reject the
claim of the respondent No.1 on the ground of delay.
[2] Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for appellant submits that father of
respondent No.1 died on 16/6/1996. Merely, because the respondent
No.1 was minor at the time of death, his claim application cannot be
considered and he cannot be appointed after more than two decades from
the date of death of his father. This will defeat the very purpose of grant
of compassionate appointment. In support of his contentions he has
placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. dated 28/8/2000 passed in
SLP (Civil) No.12876/2000 and orders of this Court in the matter of
Sanjay Shriwas Vs. C.M.D & another dated 13/2/2017 passed in WP
No.5386/2015, Sanjay Shriwas Vs. C.M.D. & another dated 23/10/2017
passed in WA No.270/2017, Amit Kumar Vs. C.M.D, M.P. P.K.V.V.Co.
Ltd. & another dated 11/1/2019 passed in WA No.136/2018 and Hitesh
Bharti Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. dated 18/1/2021 passed in WP
No.13899/2020.
[3] Per contra, Shri L.C. Patne supported the impugned order on the
basis of the policy.
[4] No other point is advanced by learned counsel for parties.
[5] We have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and
perused the record.
[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:-
State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath (1998) 2 SCC 412
"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
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:-
Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481
"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 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.
[11] Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order of writ court dated
30/9/2019 is set aside. Writ appeal is allowed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (SUJOY PAUL)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vm
Digitally signed by
VARGHESE MATHEW
Date: 2021.06.08
16:39:34 -07'00'
