Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Awasthi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 882 of 2021
Between:-
SHUBHAM AWASTHI S/O LATE SHRI PRAMOD
KUMAR AWASTHI , AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O
HOUSE NO. 520 MADHATAL JABALPUR MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. SAPNA MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR . THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TECHNICAL
EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION 4TH
FLOOR SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL GOVT. KALANIKETAN
POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE DISTT. JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JUBIN PRASAD, PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
B y invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Signature Not Verified
SAN Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN "(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
Date: 2022.05.13 19:56:54 IST
the impugned order dated Nil with Postal Slip dated 04.02.2020
(Annexure P/14), issued by the respondent No.3.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment in accordance to the Circular dated
31.08.2016 (Annexure P16), within a stipulated period of time, as
held by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Bank of Maharashtra Vs.
Manoj Kumar Dehariya 2010 (3) MPLJ 213 and the law decided
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Santosh Vs. State of
Karnataka & others Civil Appeal No. 1996/2020 dated
04.03.2020 (Annexure-16).
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
any other writ or directions looking to the facts and circumstances
of the case and be pleased to award cost of litigation in favour of
the petitioner."
Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the father of the petitioner
died while in service on 27.07.2016, thereafter, petitioner applied for grant of
compassionate appointment on 22.09.2016. The claim of the petitioner has been
rejected on the ground that as per Clause 11.1 of the Policy dated 29.09.2014,
the dependents of the deceased are entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
only.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order on the ground that it
i s contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 03.05.2019
passed in W.A.No. 601/2019 (State of M.P. and another Vs. Sonu Jatav). In the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
aforesaid case, it has been held that Circular dated 31.08.2016 is not a new
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Policy but by the existing Policy, 29.09.2014 has been amended. Death of
Date: 2022.05.13 19:56:54 IST
employee took place on 27.07.2016. Policy of compassionate appointment was
amended on 31.08.2016. As per Policy, which was prevalent at the time of
death there was no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to
employees who are getting salary from Work Charged and Contingency Fund
but there is a provision to grant them lump sum compensation. The Division
Bench by its order applied amended Circular dated 31.08.2016 from a
retrospective date held the petitioner to be entitled for compassionate
appointment in the case of Sonu Jatav (supra)
On the strength of the said judgmennt, learned counsel for the petitioner
prayed for quashing of the order dated 04.02.2020 (Annexure P/14) and to
directed the respondents to grant the petitioner compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State vehemently
opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of
compassionate appointment since the dependents of the deceased employee
have already been compensated by paying a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The father
of the petitioner died on 27.07.2016. The case of the petitioner is governed by
Circular dated 29.09.2014 and not by Circular dated 31.08.2016.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10
SCC 496 as well as judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ashish Awashthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157 and contended
that the Apex Court has categorically held that the Circular/Policy dated
31.08.2016, cannot be made applicable retrospectively and held that the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
respondent is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Similar is the case of
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
the petitioner. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
BURMAN
Date: 2022.05.13 19:56:54 IST
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Apex Court in case of Indian Bank and others vs. Promila and
another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729, has held that objective of
compassionate appointment is to provide solace and succor to the family in
difficult times and thus the relevancy is at the stage of time when the employee
passes away. In case of State of Gujarat and others Vs. Arvind Kumar T.
Tiwari and another, (2012) 9 SCC 545 , it was held by Apex Court that case
of compassionate appointment is to be decided as per the terms of policy as
existing on the date of demise of an employee unless subsequent policy is made
applicable retrospectively.
On basis of aforesaid pronouncement, it is clear that claim of an
employee cannot be decided on a subsequent policy that came into force much
after death of employee unless such subsequent scheme provides that it will
come into operation retrospectively. In the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) and
Ashish Awashti (supra), position was further clarified as Apex Court
considered various circulars issued by State Government for grant of
compassionate appointment. While considering circulars dated 29.09.2014,
31.08.2016 and 21.03.2017 it was held that cases pending before the department
before issuance of circular dated 31.08.2016 would be decided only in terms of
policy dated 29.09.2014.
Considering the aforesaid, no illegality is found in the order dated
04.02.2020 the deceased employee had and, accordingly the petition is hereby
dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Considering the case of petitioner, in view of aforesaid judgments, no
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
illegality is found in the order dated 04.02.2020. The deceased employee had
BURMAN
Date: 2022.05.13 19:56:54 IST
died on 27.07.2016. On this date circular dated 29.09.2014 was in force. Case
of petitioner was decided as per this circular.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the case, writ petition is hereby
dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vinay*
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.05.13 19:56:54 IST
