Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Kumar Masulkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
W.P. No. 4045/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 11th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 4045 of 2020
Between:-
MANISH KUMAR MASULKAR S/O LATE
SHRI DHANRAJ MASULKAR, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, WARD NO. 2, NEAR
AMBEDKAR SQUARE, P.S. KATANGI
MAHEDULI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRADEEP NAVERIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
1. FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF
M.P., VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
SERVICES, BHOPAL (MADHYA
2.
PRADESH)
JOINT DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES,
JABALPUR, DIVISION JABALPUR
3.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH
4. OFFICER, SIVNI, DISTRICT SIVNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TAPAN BATHRE, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
W.P. No. 4045/2020
2
ORDER
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order
dated 15.06.2011 (Annexure-P/8) whereby the claim for grant of compassionate
appointment has been rejected.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the mother of the petitioner
who was working on the post of Health Worker died on 25.04.1990. At the time of
death, the petitioner was just 2 years and 5 months old. The petitioner submitted
an application on 15.02.2007 after attaining the age of 18 years. Thereafter, the
petitioner time and again approached the respondents but only verbal assurances
were given and his case was not decided. However, vide the impugned order dated
15.06.2011, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that as per
the policy dated 18.08.2008 in Clause-3.2 provides that compassionate
appointment can be granted within seven years from the date of death that to if the
posts are vacant. Moreover, as per Clause 7.1, if the member is a minor and
attained the age of majority within seven years then only his case can be
considered for grant of compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved, this petition
has been filed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that
this petition is hopelessly barred by time. In as much as, the claim of the petitioner
was rejected in the year 2011 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the
year 2020. The application has been rightly rejected as per the policy. Admittedly,
the family of the petitioner has been able to survive for last more than 32 years
after the death of mother of the petitioner. The petitioner was only 2 years and 5
months old at the time of death of his mother.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Local Administration Department and another vs.
M. Selvanayagam alias Kumarvelu reported in 2011 (13) SCC 42, in paras 11,
12 and 13 it was held:
"11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it
needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of
compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying
W.P. No. 4045/2020
in harness one of his eligible dependants is given a job
with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to
the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as
a result of the death of the breadwinner. An appointment
made many years after the death of the employee or
without due consideration of the financial resources
available to his/her dependants and the financial
deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his
death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of
the dependants of the deceased employee would be
directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing
with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative
to keep this vital aspect in mind.
12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis
should be made without any loss of time but having
regard to the delays in the administrative process and
several other relevant factors such as the number of
already pending claims under the scheme and availability
of vacancies, etc. normally the appointment may come
after several months or even after two to three years. It is
not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time-
limit within which appointment on compassionate
grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is
that such an appointment must have some bearing on the
object of the scheme.
13. In this case the respondent was only 11 years old at
the time of the death of his father. The first application for
his appointment was made on 2-7-1993, even while he
was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf
on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his
father's death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be
said to subserve the basic object and purpose of the
scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority
he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an
employee of the Municipality and he had died while in
service."
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of State of J. & K. & Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir AIR
(2006) SC 2743 to contend that three years' delay in challenging order rejecting
the claim for compassionate appointment holding that filing an application after 4
½ years after the death of the father, the writ petition is not maintainable and
dismissed the same on the ground of delay and laches.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
W.P. No. 4045/2020
7. In view of the aforesaid above referred judgments of the Apex Court, the
provision for grant of compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle,
therefore, it cannot be said that there is violation of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but
has to be exercised within reasonable time so as to ensure that the bereaved family
of the deceased employee is able to tide over from the immediate financial crises.
Secondly, the petition is hopelessly barred by time.
8. The petition being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
ashish
Digitally signed by ASHISH
KUMAR LILHARE
Date: 2022.04.12 11:39:23 +05'30'
