Kunal Koshta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6739 MP

                                                            1
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                    ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2022

                                            WRIT PETITION No. 9790 of 2022

                               Between:-
                               KUNAL KOSHTA S/O LATTE SHRI HARISHANKAR
                               KOSHTA , AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                               UNEMPLOYED MIG C/160 DHANWANTARI NAGAR
                               NEAR GURUKUL SCHOOL, GARHA, JABALPUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                               (BY SHRI ADITYA NARAYAN SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)

                               AND

                      1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                               PRINCIPAL   SECRETARY   PUBLIC   WORKS
                               DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.       ENGINEER     IN    CHIEF, PUBLIC               WORKS
                               D EPARTM EN T NIRMAN BHAWAN,                  BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.       CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
                               DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.       EXECUTIVE          ENGINEER, PUBLIC   WORKS
                               D E P A R T M E N T DIVISION    NARSINGHPUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                               (BY SHRI AMIT MISHRA, PANEL LAWYER)

                            This writ petition has come up for hearing on admission on this day, the
                      court passed the following:
                                                             ORDER

This writ petition is filed claiming compassionate appointment and challenging the order dated 09/06/2021 (Annexure-P/1) whereby claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected in terms of GAD circular No.C-3/2013/1/5/Bhopal, dated 29th September, 2014 (Clause-12.2) which provides that cases for compassionate appointment which were already rejected or decided earlier to this circular will not be reconsidered. Signature SAN Verified Not Shri Aditya Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Date: 2022.05.06 10:42:07 IST

Pradesh and others Vs. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157 , submits that for appointment on compassionate ground, policy prevalent at the time of death of deceased only is required to be considered and not subsequent policy. It is submitted that authority erred in applying policy dated 29th September, 2014.

However, Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, is in admission that his father who was working as a Draftsman under respondent No.4 died on 31/03/2004. His mother had moved application for grant of compassionate appointment, however, that application was rejected in the year 2006 on the basis of prevalent policy at the relevant time dated 01/05/2000 which provides that persons who are having sufficient means of sustainability and bear the total annual income of more than 35,000/- per annum, then said persons are declared to be ineligible.

Petitioner's contention is that vide communication dated 24/06/2021 made by Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Public Works Department, Jabalpur, petitioner came to know that GAD circular dated 08/10/2002 had superseded that condition of annual income as was laid down in circular dated 01/05/2000, therefore, petitioner's case should have been considered on the touchstone of policy of 2000 as was amended in 2002 as petitioner was minor at the relevant point of time.

However, Shri Aditya Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, admits that petitioner's mother is a pensioner. She is in receipt of family pension. His mother never raised this issue after rejection of her representation in the year 2006.

Even if petitioner's submission is to be accepted on merits, policy dated 01/05/2000 (Annexure-P/2) provides that if there is no major dependent family member of the deceased employee, then the person attaining the age of majority within three years of such death can be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. Thus, it is evident that petitioner would have been eligible to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of policy dated 01/05/2000 which was prevalent on the date of death of his father in terms of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Awasthi (supra), only if petitioner would have attained age of majority upto 31/03/2007. Admittedly, petitioner did not attain the age of majority till 2018. Petitioner's mother did not

raise any objection to the rejection of her claim in the year 2006, therefore, at this distance of time, both aspects of dependency of petitioner on his father and penury are missing calling for any indulgence.

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts