Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Dutt Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 15th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 6032 of 2022
Between:-
1. PRAVEEN DUTT SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRIKRISHNA DUTT
SHUKLA , AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED KEN BLOCK 07 POLICE LINE, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUDHA SHUKLA W/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA DUTT SHUKLA ,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
KEN BLOCK, 07 POLICE LINE, JABALPUR, MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRABHANSHU SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY HOME DEPT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTER,
BHOPAL BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
PERSONNEL, POLICE HEAD QUARTER, BHOPAL BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTER,
J A B A L P U R DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no.1 has moved an application
for compassionate appointment which was rejected by the authorities vide impugned order
dated 28/10/2021(Annexure-P-5) on the ground that one member from the family of the
petitioner is already in government job. It is also mentioned in order that according to
Clause 4.1 of policy dated 29/09/2014 said person is not entitled to be considered for grant
of compassionate appointment.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement passed by the Division Bench
on 03/01/2022 in Writ Appeal 13/2020(Neha Vs. State of M.P. and others ), whereby the
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.03.16 11:08:30 IST
Division Bench has taken note of the fact that the authorities have rejected the claim of the
petitioner without making any inquiry in respect of the fact that the person who is in
government service is supporting the family of the deceased or not. In the absence of any
such inquiry, opinion for rejecting the application for grant of compassionate appointment
only on the ground that one member from the family of petitioner is already in a government
job, does not seem to be proper. The Division Bench has set aside the order and remitted
the matter to the authorities for making fresh inquiry to ascertain the fact as has been stated
by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that the person
already employed in government service is residing separately and not supported the family
of the deceased.
Counsel for State although was seeking time to file reply and to examine the judgment
passed by Division Bench, but in my opinion that would be a futile exercise.
Accordingly, in the light of the judgment of Division Bench, I am inclined to set-aside
the the impugned order dated 28/10/2021(Annexure-P-5) and remitted the matter with the
direction to the authorities to make an appropriate inquiry to ascertain the fact whether the
brother of the present petitioner no.1 and son of the petitioner no.2 is residing with the
family of deceased or is helping to them, though he is in government service. If after
inquiry, it is found that he is residing separately and not providing any assistance to the
family of the deceased, the claim of the petitioner shall be reconsidered and fresh order be
passed. The aforesaid exercise be completed by the authorities within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observation petition is disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sushma
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.03.16 11:08:30 IST
