Mr. Rajendra Kumar Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7924 MP

                                                  W.P. No.25325/2019

                            -:- 1 -:-

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
                  JABALPUR

Case No.                            W.P. No.25325 OF 2019
Parties Name                      Rajendra Kumar Raikwar
                                            vs.
                             State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Date of order                      29/11/2021
Bench Constituted           Single Bench : Justice Purushaindra
                            Kumar Kaurav
Order passed by             Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Whether approved for        Yes
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For Petitioner: Shri Choudhary
                            Mayank Singh, Advocate
                            For Respondents/State : Shri Devdatt
                            Bhave, Panel Lawyer.
Law laid down               1. Compassionate employment is not
                            an alternate method of public
                            employment but the same is given
                            solely on humanitarian grounds with
                            the sole object to provide immediate
                            relief to the employee's family to tide
                            over the sudden financial crisis and the
                            same cannot be claimed as a matter of
                            right.

                            2. Compassionate appointment cannot
                            be claimed as a matter of right as it is
                            not a vested right and the policy
                            prevailing at the time of consideration
                            of the application for compassionate
                            appointment, would be applicable.

                            3. Policy/circular prevalent at the time
                            of death of deceased employee only is
                            required to be considered and not the
                            subsequent policy.

Significant paragraph        6, 10 & 11
numbers
                                                            W.P. No.25325/2019

                                   -:- 2 -:-

                                  ORDER

(29/11/2021)

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

challenge is to order dated 16.5.2017 (Annexure P/3) passed by the

Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department of the

State of Madhya Pradesh, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for his

compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father.

2. The undisputed facts in brief are as under:-

(i) The father of the petitioner namely Late Laxman Prasad

Raikwar was working on the post of "Helper" against Work

Charged and Contingency paid Establishment under the

respondent department, who passed away on 20.1.2015.

(ii) The petitioner submitted an application for his compassionate

appointment on 20.3.2015, as per policy dated 29.9.2014.

(iii) On 31.8.2016, Clause 11.1 of the policy dated 29.9.2014 was

clarified to the extent that the dependent of deceased

employee who was working against Work Charged and

Contingency paid Establishment would also be entitled for

compassionate appointment. The State Government on 21 st

March, 2017 (Annexure R/4) has further clarified that the

provision/decision dated 31.8.2016 providing compassionate

appointment to the dependents of deceased employee

working against Work Charged and Contingency paid W.P. No.25325/2019

-:- 3 -:-

Establishment, would be applicable only w.e.f. 31.8.2016 and

prior to that, the cases for compassionate appointment would

be considered as per earlier provisions/policy dated

29.9.2014.

(iv) The request for compassionate appointment of the petitioner

has been turned down vide order dated 16.5.2017 (Annexure

P/3) on the ground that the case of the petitioner would be

governed by the earlier policy dated 29.9.2014, and the new

provision/policy dated 31.8.2016 would not be applicable in

his case.

(v) On 24.4.2015 (Annexure R/1), the widow of Late Shri

Laxman Prasad Raikwar had already been paid consolidated

sum of Rs.2 Lacs as Anukampa Anudan as per Clause 11.1 of

the policy dated 29.9.2014.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently

submitted that vide policy/circular dated 31.8.2016, the provision for

compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee

who was working on Work Charged and Contingency paid

Establishment has been made, however, the same has to be read with

the main policy dated 29.9.2014, and is applicable w.e.f 29.9.2014

itself. He has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in the cases of

State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bheru Singh 1, Dilip More

W.P. No.25325/2019

-:- 4 -:-

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2 and State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Sonu Jatav3.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the writ

petition and has submitted that the decisions as cited by the petitioner

do not consider the clarification vide Annexure R/4 dated 21.3.2017,

wherein it was clarified that the amended Clause 11.1 would be

applicable from 31.8.2016 and any death occurred before 31.8.2016

will not be covered under amended Clause 11.1. The entitlement of

compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the policy

existing on the date of death of deceased employee. He has relied upon

the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian

Bank and others Vs. Promila and another4.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and

perused the record.

6. It is settled legal position that compassionate employment is not

an alternate method of public employment but the same is given solely

on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate

relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis

and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

7. For proper understanding of the policy, which was applicable on

4 (2020) 2 SCC 729 W.P. No.25325/2019

-:- 5 -:-

the date of death of the deceased employee, it is thought apposite to

reproduce Clause 11.1 of the main policy dated 29.9.2014 which reads

as under:-

^^11- dk;ZHkkfjr vkdfLderk ,oa nSfud osru Hkksfx;ksa gsrq izko/kku 11-1 dk;[email protected] fuf/k ls osru okys ,oa nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa ds fnoaxr gksus ij vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxh ijUrq muds ifjokj ds vkfJr ukekafdr lnL; dks ,deq'r :i;s 2-00 yk[k ¼:i;s nks yk[k½ dh jkf'k vuqdaik vuqnku ds uke ls nh tk,xhA mlesa xzsT;wVh dh jkf'k lfEefyr ugha gksxhA bl jkf'k dk Hkqxrku lacaf/kr foHkkx ds dk;[email protected] ds en ds varxZr osru en ls fd;k tkosxkA**

8. An extract of the circular dated 31.8.2016 is also necessary to be

considered which reads as under:-

^^jkT; 'kklu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fuf/k ls osru ikus okys lsok ds e`rd deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJrksa ds fy, vuqdEik fu;qfDr dk izko/kku fon~;eku O;oLFkk vuqlkj fd, tk,A vr% lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 29-09-2014 esa tkjh fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds ekin.M ds vuq:i gh dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fuf/k lsok ls osru ikus okys deZpkfj;ksa ds fn~oaxr gksus ij muds vkfJr dks blh lsok dh LFkkiuk ds fjDr inksa ij vuqdaik fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dh dk;ZokbZ lqfuf'pr dh tk;sA**

9. There is no doubt that the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Sonu Jatav3 has held that the circular dated 31.8.2016 is not a

new policy but a circular by which existing policy dated 29.9.2014 was

amended. It has also been held that to hold it otherwise, would be W.P. No.25325/2019

-:- 6 -:-

detrimental to the interest of the dependent. There was already a

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashish

Awasthi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 5 wherein while taking into

consideration the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bank

of Maharashtra Vs. Manoj Kumar Dehariya 6 and the judgment of

the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank and another Vs. M.

Mahesh Kumar7, it was held that the circular dated 31.8.2016 should

be made applicable even to the cases where the deaths occurred before

issuance of the said circular and, in that case, the circular dated

31.8.2016 was made applicable for the death which had occurred on

8.10.2015.

10. The Full Bench decision in the case of Manoj Kumar

Dehariya6 has been followed by another Full Bench decision of this

Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxman Prasad

Raikwar8 and it has been held that compassionate appointment cannot

be claimed as a matter of right as it is not a vested right and the policy

prevailing at the time of consideration of the application for

compassionate appointment, would be applicable.

11. The decision of the Division Bench as mentioned above in the

case of Ashish Awasthi5 was assailed by the State Government before

the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and

6 2010 (4) MPHT 18 7 (2015) 7 SCC 412 8 2018 (4) MPLJ 657 W.P. No.25325/2019

-:- 7 -:-

others Vs. Ashish Awasthi9. The Supreme Court has taken note of the

Full Bench decision in the case of Manoj Kumar Dehariya6 and has

held that as the per policy/circular prevalent at the time of death of

deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the

subsequent policy. Even in the case of Ashish Awasthi5 in compliance

of the order of this Court, the dependent was already appointed on

compassionate grounds, however, the Supreme Court rejected the

prayer for not disturbing the said appointment and has held that once

the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and

set aside, the necessary consequences shall follow and the appointment

of the respondent in that case was not protected.

12. In view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Supreme

Court in respect of the policy which is subject matter of the present

writ petition, this petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV) JUDGE

Pushpendra

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2021.11.29 16:57:30 +05'30'

9 Civil Appeal No.6903/2021 Judgment dated 18.11.2021