Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2021
Author: Atul Sreedharan
1 WP-20129-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-20129-2020
(PRAVEEN KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 17-03-2021
Shri Dileep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Santosh Yadav, learned panel lawyer for the respondents/State.
The present petitioner is aged about 31 years. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2007 by which the District Education
Officer has refused to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment on the ground that the petitioner has not made representation for
grant of compassionate appointment within seven years from the death of the
Government Servant.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State has taken a preliminary
objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of
unexplained laches.
According to the learned counsel for the State, the impugned was
passed in the year 2007 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the
year 2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay was on
account of the petitioner having made several representations time and again
over these past 13 years which were never considered by the respondents
and, thereafter he has preferred the present petition. He has relied upon the
recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank and
others Vs. Promila and another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729. In that
judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down that the relevant scheme which
was prevalent on the date of demise of the employee will be applicable.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the said
judgment would only come to the aid and assistance to the petitioner,
provided the petition itself was filed promptly.
Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that it is settled law
that the provisions of compassionate appointment is not to facilitate the
2 WP-20129-2020
backdoor entry by-passing the regular mode of recruitment but is only to
ensure that the family and dependants of a Government employee who died in
harness receive succor and relief and are not exposed to vagrancy on account
of financial inadequacy.
In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and
others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Supreme Court laid down the
four factors which have to be borne in mind while dealing with an application
for compassionate appointment. Firstly, that the compassionate appointment
cannot be made in absence of rules and regulations; and that the request is to
be construed strictly in accordance with the Government scheme. Secondly,
it laid down that an application for compassionate appointment must be
preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable
time. Thirdly, it laid down that the appointment on compassionate ground is
to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of death of the
bread winner in service and the same cannot be granted as matter of course
by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased at
the time of his death or in capacity and lastly, it laid down that compassionate
appointment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased and
that the appointment should be only to the lowest category i.e. Class-III and
Class-IV posts.
In the instant case, it is very clear that the petitioner and his family has
survived from 1998 till 2020. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was earning
enough during this period to survive. Moreover, once the application was
dismissed in the year 2007, the fact that he slept over his rights for 13 years
also makes it very clear that the third factor which the Supreme Court laid
down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case (supra) does not exist in the case of
the petitioner which is sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the
death of a Government servant in service.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has
been making repeated representations which were never considered by the
3 WP-20129-2020
respondents does not come to his aid, as it is settled law that not approaching
the Court promptly for the adjudication of one's right and more so, where the
delay is so much, the petition cannot be entertained on account of laches.
Therefore, this petition is dismissed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE
AM
Digitally signed by ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2021.03.19 12:46:40 +05'30'
