Madhya Pradesh High Court
Triveni Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 7777 of 2012
(TRIVENI PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri J.L. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gaurav Tiwari, P.L. for the respondent-State.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 28.04.2011 passed by
respondent No.1 whereby application for grant of compassionate
appointment has been rejected by the Superintendent Police, Rewa.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is son of
deceased employee Ram Yash Mishra, who was working as Constable 263
with the respondent authorities. He was posted at Sehore and on transfer to
Rewa, he had given his attendance at Rewa on 22.07.1978 when unit had
given him Badge No. 484. Thereafter, he was sent on deputation to Gwalior.
Despite completion of the period of deputation and being relieved by the
Transport Commissioner for joining in the unit at Rewa, deceased Ram Yash
Mishra had not joined at Rewa as a result, his claims were not paid.
Wife of Shri Ram Yash Mishra had filed W.P. No. 15294 of 2006(S),
which was decided vide order dated 28.06.2008 and in terms of the said
order, the retiral dues of the deceased have been paid to his wife (widow)
Pragwati and his widow is drawing the regular family pension thereafter.
Petitioner's contention is that since Shri Ram yash Mishra died in the year
1999 and at that point of time, petitioner was minor. He had moved an
application for grant of compassionate appointment, which has been rejected
by the Superintendent of Police, Rewa.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for rejection
of representation is contrary to the facts available on the record. It is
submitted that petitioner being entitled to grant of compassionate
Signature Not Verified
SAN
appointment, his case be considered and accordingly compassionate
Digitally signed by KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Date: 2022.01.19 11:05:03 IST
appointment be granted to him.
Learned Panel lawyer for the respondent-State in turn submits that
compassionate appointment is not a right and petitioner has no vested to right
to claim compassionate appointment. The claim made by the petitioner is
belated. Employee had died in the year 1999. Claim was made much later and,
therefore, the claim cannot be entertained.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the law
on subject, in case of Smt. Sushma Gosian and others Vs. Union of India
and others (1989)4 SCC 468, Supreme Court has held that the purpose of
grant of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship. Equally
settled is the law that compassionate appointment is not an alternate mode of
recruitment. The purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to
mitigate the immediate hardship so to save the family of a deceased employee
from penury. The question of need of the family is to be examined, as has
been held in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryan (1994) 4
SCC 138. It is also held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Haryana
State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar and another (1996) 8 SCC 23
that if the claim for compassionate appointment is belated then such claim
cannot be and should not be entertained. Infact in case of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal (supra), it is held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted
after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of
compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open
recruitment, is intended to meet the financial problem being suffered by the
members of the family of the deceased employee.
Similarly, in case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC
301, it is held that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased
employee, who dies in harness is to relief immediate hardship and distress
caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family
and such consideration cannot be kept pending for years. Therefore, when
vested on the anvil of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court then it
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Date: 2022.01.19 11:05:03 IST
cannot be said that in the year 2011 after for more than 12 years of death of
the employee, any exigency existed to make an exception to the rule for
general recruitment and secondly in view of the admission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that widow of Shri Mishra has been paid family
pension, that aspect of penury being missing, decision to not to grant
compassionate appointment to the petitioner cannot be faulted with.
Though, I am in agreement that the reasoning of the Superintendent of
Police, Rewa is not correct but at this distance of time, no useful purpose is
going to be served by remitting the matter to the Superintendent of Police,
Rewa to re-consider the case especially when law on the subject of grant of
compassionate appointment is crystal clear and petitioner has failed to make
out the case within the fourcorners of the requirement of law.
In view of the aforesaid, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Date: 2022.01.19 11:05:03 IST
