Neerajkant Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6770 MP

                                                        1                                WP-635-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                        WP No. 635 of 2021
                                (NEERAJKANT DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 25-10-2021
                            Shri B.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                            Shri Tapan Bathre, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the action of the respondents and not giving the compassionate appointment to the petitioner in lieu of the services rendered by his father in the respondent's department.

It is alleged that the father of the petitioner was in service in the respondent's department on the post of vehicle driver and during his service he passed away on 21.07.2006. After the death of the father of the petitioner, he was having the responsibility of the family and in terms of the norms of the department, he applied for the compassionate appointment in place of his father. The application was filed on 18.01.2007, thereafter, the representation was filed to the Collector, District Narsinghpur but no action has been taken by the authorities. The legal notice was issued to the authorities on 02.11.2019 but despite service of legal notice, the authorities have kept quiet for a long

time therefore, innocuous prayer was made to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the pending representation with respect to grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in lieu of the services rendered by his father in the respondent's department.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the law with respect to the compassionate appointment is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of India and Another Vs. P.Venkatesh reported in 2019 (15) SCC 613 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that grant of compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and cannot be granted after a considerable period. The basic object of compassionate appointment is frustrated after a considerable delay. It is submitted that the death of the father of the petitioner has taken Signature Not SAN Verified place in the year, 2006. Although, the petitioner has applied for grant of Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.10.30 10:32:12 IST 2 WP-635-2021 compassionate appointment, as per the documents filed by the petitioner in the present petition in the year, 2006 itself but the fact remains that the petitioner has kept quiet for a long period and it is only in the year, 2019 the steps were taken by the petitioner by issuance of legal notice to the respondent authorities.

It is pointed out that the registry slips which have been filed along with the legal notice dated 31.12.2020 i.e. after almost 14 years of the death of the father of the petitioner. The object of compassionate appointment is to over come the immediate hardship which has been faced by the family members of the deceased employee as he being the sole breadwinner of the family but the petitioner and his family members have survived for a period of almost 14 years after the death of the sole breadwinner of the family. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record it is not disputed that the death of the father of the petitioner took place on 21.07.2006. Although, petitioner has stated that he has applied for compassionate appointment on 10.01.2007 which is reflected from the postal receipts which are annexed with the writ petition along with an application for grant of compassionate appointment but the petitioner has kept quiet for a considerable period and has not taken any action for redressal of his grievances. It is only in the year 2019, the legal notice dated 02.11.2019 was stated to be issued. The postal receipts which are annexed are of December, 2020. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is only the compassion which is shown by the employer to overcome hardships which are being faced by the family of the deceased employee due to his sudden demise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of India and Another (supra) as held as under :-

Signature Not "7. The primary difficulty in accepting the line of SAN Verified

Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.10.30 10:32:12 IST 3 WP-635-2021 submissions, which weighed with the High Court, and were reiterated on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings, is simply this: Compassionate appointment, it is well-settled, is intended to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. If the facts of the present case are seen, it is evident that even the first recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set of representations had been rejected on 3 January 1997. The Tribunal, unfortunately, passed a

succession of orders calling upon the appellants to consider and then re-consider the representations for compassionate appointment. After the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting rejected the representation on 13 November 2007, it was only in 2010 that the Tribunal was moved again, with the same result. These successive orders of Tribunal for re- consideration of the representation cannot obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the Tribunal for compassionate appointment over a decade after the death of the deceased employee.

8. This `dispose of the representation' mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. By the time, Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.10.30 10:32:12 IST 4 WP-635-2021 the High Court issued its direction on 9 August 2016, nearly twenty one years had elapsed since the date of the death of the employee.

9. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court held thus:

"2...The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency."

10. Bearing in mind the above principles, this Court held: (Umesh Kumar case SCC pp 141-42, para 6) "6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.10.30 10:32:12 IST 5 WP-635-2021 crisis is over."

11. The recourse to the Tribunal suffered from a delay of over a decade in the first instance. This staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment. The claim was liable to be rejected on that ground and ought to have been so rejected. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable."

On perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, it is seen that the High Court has allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities for consideration of the case of the petitioner but Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the basic object for grant of compassionate appointment has set aside the order passed by the High Court and has held that after a considerable period when the family of the deceased employee has already survived no direction for consideration of the case of compassionate appointment can be given. In the present case, the petitioner and his family has survived almost for a period of 14 years after the death of the father of the petitioner. The basic object of grant of compassionate appointment does not survive any more.

In such circumstances, no err for directing the respondent authorities to consider the application for grant of compassionate appointment can be issued.

Petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.

                                                                             (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                                                                  JUDGE

                      Sha




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
SMT SHALINI
SINGH LANDGE
Date: 2021.10.30
10:32:12 IST