Smt. Rooplata Kori vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5594 MP

                                                                W.P. No. 13679/2021
                                       1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                 AT JABALPUR
                                      BEFORE

           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                            ON THE 19th OF APRIL, 2022

                       WRIT PETITION No. 13679 of 2021

     Between:-
     SMT. ROOPLATA KORI W/O SHRI RAJENDRA
     BUNKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     EMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE KALYANPUR P.O.
     MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                 .....PETITIONER

     (BY SHRI ANIRUDHA PD. PANDEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

     AND

   THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH IT'S SECRETARY
   I.T.I. DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA BHOPAL,
1.
   SATPUDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

   JOINT DIRECTOR, GOVT. ITI REWA DIVISION
2. DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

   DIRECTOR, GOVT. ITI MADHOTAL JABALPUR
3. DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

   PRINCIPAL, GOVT. ITI AMAR PATAN DISTT.
4. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

     COLLECTOR SATNA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
5.
     PRADESH)
                                                               .....RESPONDENTS

     (BY SHRI SANJEEV        SINGH,    LEARNED     PANEL    LAWYER     FOR    THE
     RESPONDENTS/STATE)
      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                      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 06.09.2013 (Annexure-P/6) whereby the claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that married daughter is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

W.P. No. 13679/2021

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the case are that the father of the petitioner late Shri Mitthu Lal who was working on the post of Head Clerk / Accountant died while in service on 06.11.2012 due to brain hemorrhage. The petitioner is the married daughter of the employee. The employee was only bread-earner in entire family and everyone was depended upon her father. There is no other source of income of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 06.08.2013. The mother of the petitioner has given consent/no objection on affidavit (Annexure-P/3) for the petitioner's appointment on compassionate basis. The respondents while scrutinizing the application had ignored/rejected the genuine claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment only for the sole reason that the petitioner is married daughter and rejected the claim vide impugned order dated 06.09.2013, which is under challenged in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court as well as the Apex Court in number of cases have already held that the married daughter is also entitled for appointment on compassionate basis. The respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner in objective manner enabling the family of the petitioner to tied over the immediate crises. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the respondents may be directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner is highly belated since the deceased employee died on 06.11.2012 and the petitioner applied on 06.08.2013. The claim was rejected on 06.09.2013 whereas the petition has been filed in the year 2021 without there being any explanation for delay caused in filing of the petition. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. The challenge is made after lapse of more than 8 years of the deceased employee. Admittedly, the family of the petitioner has been able to survive for last more than 10 years, therefore, ground of financial crises is no more available to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected.

W.P. No. 13679/2021

5. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments of Apex Court:-

(i) Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138, in which it was held:

"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.

Offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible.

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 crisis is over. SLPs dismissed."

(ii) 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:

W.P. No. 13679/2021

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 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.

(iii) Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar and others reported in 2009 (13) SCC 112, in para 7 it was held:

7. So far as the question of nature and object of appointment on compassionate ground, it is relevant to take note of what is stated by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 W.P. No. 13679/2021

SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] : (SCC p. 141, para 6) "6. ... 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 crisis is over."

(iv) Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2000 (7) SCC 192, it was held:

"Compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.

Moreover, when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. Therefore, the instant SLP is meritless."

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the present case, the father of the petitioner died in the year 2012 whereas the application was made in the year 2013 and the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2013. The petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of 8 years without there being any explanation for delay. 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.

W.P. No. 13679/2021

In the present case, it is also not known as to how many dependents are their in the family. Admittedly, the family of the petitioner has been able to survive for last 10 years and, therefore, the ground of financial crises is no more available to the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner had abandoned the claim for herself on the ground of overage. In light of the Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this belated stage.

8. The petition being devoid of merit and substance is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

9. No order as to costs.

(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2022.04.21 17:39:02 +05'30'