Smt Sarvesh Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3897 MP

                            1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
                    BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                            &
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

               ON THE 22nd OF MARCH, 2022




              WRIT PETITION No. 7977 of 2021

    Between:-
    SMT SARVESH KUSHWAH W/O LATE SHRI RAGHUNANDAN
1   SINGH KUSHWAH , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
.   HOUSEWIFE R/O NEW POLICE LINE BLOCK-B QUARTER
    NO 14, BHIND DISTRICT-BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
    SMT. ASHA RAJAWAT W/O SHRI ABHIMANYU SINGH
2   BHADORIYA , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
.   UNEMPLOYED, R/O NEW POLICE LINE BLOCK-B QUARTER
    NO.-14 BHIND, DISTRICT-BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                          .....PETITIONER
    (SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
    PETITIOENRS)

    AND
    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
    THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
1
    (i)DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION;
.   (ii) DEPARTMENT OF HOME; VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
    (MADHYA PRADESH)
2   DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTER,
.   JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3 SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, BHIND ` DISTRICT-BHIND
. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4
  COLLECTOR BHIND, DISTRICT-BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.

                                       .....RESPONDENTS
     (SHRI VARUN KAUSHIK, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
    RESPONDENTS-STATE)
                                  2

                              ORDER

Petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the married

sister of deceased Mahipal Singh s/o lt. Raghunandan Singh

Kushwaha. The deceased Mahipal Singh was working as constable

and posted at District Police Force Bhind at the time of his death on

01/02/2015. He was aged about 30 years with marital status as

unmarried.

2. It appears that petitioner No.2 applied for appointment on

compassionate ground through an application in the year 2016. The

application was rejected vide order dated 01/03/2016 (Annexure P-1)

by respondent No.3/ Superientednent of Police Bhind, on the premise

that she does not fall in the category of eligible person under clause

2.6 of the policy of the State Government dated 29th September,

2014. Therefore, petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seek to challenged the validity of clause 2.6

of the policy as undisputedly, petitioner No.2 does not qualify to be

considered for appointment on compassionate ground in the teeth of

the said clause. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by

the Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur passed in W.A.

No.756/2019 dated 02/03/2020 to bolster his submissions.

3. Before adverting to further submission, it is expedient to quote

clause 2.4 and 2.6 of the Policy of the State Government for ready

reference:-

^^2-4 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh larku flQZ [email protected]=;ka gksa vkSj og fookfgr gks rks fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr [email protected] }kjk ukekafdr fookfgr iq=hA ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr [email protected] thfor gksus ij gh fookfgr iq=h dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxhA ¼,slh vuqdia k fu;qfDr ikus okyh iq=h dks 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr [email protected] ds ikyu&iks"k.k dh ftEesnkjh dk 'kiFk i= nsuk gksxk½ 2-6 vfookfgr fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds HkkbZ vFkok vfookfgr cgu dks fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ekrk&firk dh vuq'aklk ds vk/kkj ijA ijUrq vfookfgr fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ekrk&firk Hkh thfor u gks rks muds vkfJr NksVs vfookfgr [email protected] dks mudh vkilh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij vuqdaik fu;qfDr nh tk,xhA**

4. It is the settled law that appointment to a post on the ground of

compassion is not the regular mode of appointment qualifying the test

of reasonableness enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India, but, an appointment through a process other

than the regular process to tied over financial difficulty of the family

of the deceased government servant where sole earning member has

died in harness and the family is found to be in penury. Therefore,

appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter

of right. The State of Madhya Pradesh has adopted a policy to

regulate appointment on compassionate ground and the same is on

record as Annexure P/2. Relevant clauses thereof has been quoted

above.

5. Indeed, clause 2.4 of the policy contemplates; where the

deceased government servant was survived by daughter/ daughters

only and if she is married but husband/ wife of the deceased

government servant is dependent upon the daughter, such daughter

may be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on

nomination by such dependent husband/ wife.

6. Clause 2.6 of the policy perceived altogether a different

situation; in case of an unmarried deceased government servant,

candidature of unmarried brother and sister on the recommendation of

the dependent parents of the deceased may be considered for

appointment on compassionate ground. Further if parents of the

deceased unmarried government servant are not surviving, their

dependents i.e.unmarried brother or sister on mutual consent may

recommend candidature of either of them. In other words, provision

under clause 2.6 of the policy has been engrafted ensuring sustenance

of the family of an unmarried deceased government servant.

7. The contentions so advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioners that since under clause 2.4 of the policy, a provision has

been made for married daughter, therefore, denial of a married sister

of an unmarried deceased government servant violates Article 14 of

the Constitution of India, in our considered opinion, is an argument in

despair and not in conformity with the mandate of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. Both the clauses are engrafted in the policy on

different eventualities and not at par with each other.

8. Indeed, Article 14 of the Constitution of India has two

dimensions viz: equality before law and equal protection of laws; a

classification based on intelligible differentia having nexus with the

objects sought to be achieved.

9. As discussed above, the underlying purpose for providing

compassionate appointment; an exception to the general rule, is to

tide over the financial stringency of the family after death of the sole

earning member and for sustenance of the family left behind by the

deceased government employee.

Clause 2.4 of the policy contemplates where deceased

employee is survived by daughter/ daughters, who are married, but

husband/ wife of the deceased government employee is dependent

upon the daughter, such married daughter on recommendation of the

surviving parents may be provided with the employment. In other

words, the compassionate appointment is granted for sustenance of

the family left behind by the deceased government employee.

Likewise, under Clause 2.6 of the policy, a provision has been

made for appointment on compassionate ground to unmarried brother/

sister on recommendation of surviving mother and father and in

absence whereof, on mutual consent of such brother and sister. This

clause is also for sustenance of the family of the deceased government

employee. Therefore, both the clauses are of distinct nature, but with

common purpose to ensure sustenance of the family of the deceased

government employee; the underlying concept of compassionate

appointment. In other words, clauses so read conform to the twin

tests of article 14 of the Constitution of India

10. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners as

above, in our considered view, are distinguishable on facts and are of

no assistance to the petitioners regard being had to the distinct clauses

2.4 and 2.6 of the policy considered in this case.

11. The writ petition is dismissed.

        (ROHIT ARYA)                         (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
             JUDGE                                    JUDGE




vc
     VARSHA
     CHATURVEDI
     2022.03.25
     10:54:39
     +05'30'