Deepak Dhakad vs The State Of Mp.
2021 Latest Caselaw 5341 MP

                            1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     WP-17367-2021
           Deepak Dhakad Vs. State of MP and ors.

Gwalior, Dated : 13-09-2021

      Shri Prashant Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Deepak Khot, Counsel for the State.

      This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking the following relief:-

              "(1) That, the impugned order passed by
       Respondent department Annexure P/1 and P/2 may

kindly be quashed.

(2) That, the respondent department be directed to consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis as per Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2014 and Circular, 2016 Annexure P/3.

(3) That, cost of petition be awarded to the petitioner.

Any other relief which this Hon'bble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that father of

the petitioner had died in harness in the year 2009 and he was a work

charged contingency paid employee and at that relevant time, there

was no provision for giving appointment to the dependents of the

work charged contingency paid employee on compassionate ground.

However, later on, the policy for appointment on compassionate

ground to the dependents of work charged contingency paid

employee also came in force. Thus, rejection of application for grant

of appointment on compassionate ground for the reason that there

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-17367-2021 Deepak Dhakad Vs. State of MP and ors.

was no policy by order dated 31.08.2016 is bad.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the State. It is submitted that the policy which was in existence on

the date of death of employee or application is a crucial one. In the

present case, father of the applicant died in harness in the year 2009

and at that time, there was no policy for giving appointment to the

dependents of work charged contingency paid employee on

compassionate ground. To buttress his contention, counsel for the

State has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Amit Shrivas

reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496 as well as the order dated

06.09.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Seema

Kausar Vs. State of Maharashtra [SLP (C) No. 19252/2018].

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya

Pradesh and other Vs. Laxman Prasad Raikwar reported in 2018

(4) MPLJ 657 has held that the policy prevailing at the time of

consideration of application for compassionate appointment would

be applicable. However, in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra), the

Supreme Court has held as under:-

"23. We may also notice the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on certain other

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-17367-2021 Deepak Dhakad Vs. State of MP and ors.

cases where orders similar in nature were passed by the High Court and an SLP against one of these orders was dismissed, but then we have already observed that this will not give a right for perpetuating something which is not permissible in law.

24. We had the occasion of examining the issue of compassionate appointment in a recent judgment in Indian Bank v. Promila [Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 312] . We may usefully refer to paras 3, 4, and 5 as under : (SCC p. 731) "3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme applicable and, thus, this Court directed the scheme prevalent, on the date of the death, to be placed before this Court for consideration, as the High Court appears to have dealt with a scheme which was of a subsequent date. The need for this also arose on account of the legal position being settled by the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] , qua what would be the cut-off date for application of such scheme.

4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away.

5. An aspect examined by this judgment [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] is as to whether a claim for compassionate employment under a scheme of a particular year could be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. The answer to this has been emphatically in the negative. It has also been observed that the grant of family pension and payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The crucial aspect is to turn to

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-17367-2021 Deepak Dhakad Vs. State of MP and ors.

the scheme itself to consider as to what are the provisions made in the scheme for such compassionate appointment."

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the policy which was in vogue at the time of death of

employee is relevant and not the date, on which the application was

considered.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that since no policy for appointment on compassionate

ground was prevailing on the date of death of father of the petitioner,

accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.

The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2021.09.14 10:48:13 +05'30'