Yogesh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3233 MP

                                                                       1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                                    BEFORE
                                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
                                                              ON THE 8th OF MARCH, 2022

                                                        WRIT PETITION No. 5343 of 2022

                                           Between:-
                                           YOGESH KUMAR PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI MUNNA
                                           LAL PANDEY , AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                                           OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE
                                           GUDHWA POST GUDH, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.)
                                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                                           (BY SHRI AJEET SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL )

                                           AND

                                   1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                           SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                                           BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.      MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. PURVA KSHETRA
                                           VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY SHAKTI BHAWAN,
                                           RAMPUR, JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   3.      CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) M.P.
                                           PURVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY
                                           BLOCK NO. 9 SHAKTI BHAWAN RAMPUR
                                           JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   4.      CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) M.P.
                                           POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED
                                           BLOCK NO.14 SHAKTI BHAWAN RAMPUR
                                           JABALPUR, DISTRICT- JABALPUR, M.P. (MADHYA
                                           PRADESH)

                                   5.      CHIEF ENGINEER (REWA REGION) M.P. PURVA
                                           KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY NEAR 132
                                           KV SUB STATION RAILWAY MODE, PADRA REWA,
                                           DISTRICT- REWA, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                           (BY SHRI DILIP SINGH PARIHAR, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER )

                                         Th is petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the
                                   following:
                                                                        ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 by which the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. The scheme of compassionate Signature Not Verified SAN

appointment which was applicable in the case of the petitioner is dated 28.07.2018. Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.03.09 12:11:37 IST

The petitioner's father died in harness on 8.9.2020. The petitioner applied for

compassionate appointment on 6.2.2021. He preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No. 23285/2021 which was disposed of by this Court on 26.10.2021 directing the respondent therein to decide the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 has

been passed.

Upon examination of the said impugned order, it appears that the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in place of his father who died in harness, has been rejected only on the ground that his elder brother, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey is working in the Indian Army. Therefore, as per the policy which is annexed as Annexure P/2 to the petition, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment.

The contention of the petitioner is that his brother Avdhesh Kumar Pandey is working in the Indian Army. He is living separately and has separate household before the death of his father and so was not dependent on the petitioner's father even during his life time. On the basis of the said facts, the petitioner has submitted that on the date on which his father died, only he and his mother were dependent upon his father and, therefore, the ground given by the respondent for the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment is erroneous as it did not take into consideration that the elder brother of the petitioner, though gainfully employed with the Indian Army, had his own separate household, was married and had his own children and was not under any legal obligation to maintain the petitioner and his mother.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to supplement his submissions, has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 8.3.2019 passed in W.P.No. 9607/2017 (Vikas Kumar Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and others). However, on going through the said judgment, this Court finds that the ratio settled therein was on a totally different issue. In that case, the application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent only on the ground that the employee, though had died during the course of his Signature Not Verified SAN employment, did not die on account of an accident suffered by him in the course Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.03.09 12:11:37 IST of discharging his duties. Examining the policy, the learned Co-ordinate Bench held

that though Clause 7.1 (Sa) of the policy has not been happily worded, if clause 3.8 of the policy, which provided that the dependents of such parents who have not died in an accident could not be given compassionate appointment, is applied strictly then Clause 7.1 (Sa) will become redundant. Thereafter, it went on to negate the contentions of the respondents and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. In Writ Appeal No. 1037/2019 (Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Vs. Abhishek Mishra and others), the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2020 has also held likewise.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State has argued that the

principle behind compassionate appointment is not to provide a parallel or alternative system of recruitment and as has been held by the Supreme Court, it only provides for a situation to protect the dependents of a government servant dying in harness from imminent and immediate penury and vagrance .He further says that the compassionate appointment is not a bounty which the dependents of a government servant are rewarded with in the event of his death in service. He further says that the Supreme Court has consistently held that other than to ensure that the family of the deceased government servant is not left open to destitution on account of his sudden demise and only towards that limitation, must the provisions be sparingly used. Otherwise, according to the learned counsel for the State, appointments to public offices must necessarily be made through open invitation to candidates and selection be made through a competitive process.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition and the documents filed therewith. As regards the law related to compassionate appointment, this Court is in agreement with the law enunciated by the learned counsel for the State. Undoubtedly, the provisions of compassionate appointment does not vest the dependents of a government servant dying in harness with an unimpeachable right to secure employment with the State or its instrumentalities. It is only for the limited purpose of ensuring that penury and vagrancy does not visit the immediate family of the deceased employee on account of his sudden and

Signature Not Verified unexpected death. The said provision is not a lottery that falls on the dependents SAN

Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH of the deceased employee upon his untimely death. The concept of compassionate Date: 2022.03.09 12:11:37 IST

appointment has always been a departure from appointment to public offices but

which has been held as reasonable in the circumstances mentioned hereinabove.

If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and that the petitioner here is to be granted compassionate appointment notwithstanding the fact that his elder brother is gainfully employed in the Indian Army, which would still make the petitioner eligible for compassionate appointment, as the elder brother has his own separate household, is married but living separately with his children. The said situation could be expanded by way of a hypothetical situation where the government servant has four sons out of which three are not merely gainfully employed but are in good positions in life. However, they are living separately from the government servant with their respective families. In such a situation one son, who has not bothered to receive adequate education, though capable of in body and mind to seek employment on his own, applies for compassionate appointment upon the death of the government servant in office on the ground that the other three brothers are gainfully employed and well settled in life but under no obligation to look after the son and the wife of the deceased employee, it would lead to an absurd situation. Even otherwise, the widow of a government servant who has sons, is entitled under the law to be maintained by them under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner in this case, who is about 23 years old and is capable of seeking employment through the competitive process does not deserve to be mollycoddle by offering him compassionate appointment. The exclusionary clause in the policy is not just reasonable but the same is in line with the judgments of the Supreme Court and other Courts which have laid down the law relating to compassionate appointment and that the same should not be seen as a lottery by the dependents of the deceased employee. Under these circumstances, the petition sans merits is dismissed.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Vikram SAN

Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.03.09 12:11:37 IST