Alok Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15037 MP

                                  1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                        ON THE 16th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                    WRIT PETITION No. 25731 of 2022

         BETWEEN:-
         ALOK SHARMA, S/O- LATE SHRI RAJESH
         SHARMA, OCCUPATION- NIL, R/O- GRAM
         BISALPURA POST- DHARAI, BHIND (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI HARSHAD BAHIRANI- ADVOCATE)

         AND
1.       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH- MINISTRY OF
         HOME AFFAIRS, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRD
         FLOOR, VALLABH BHAWAN-II, GOVERNMENT
         OF MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL, MADHYA
         PRADESH-462004

2.       DIRECTOR GENERAL OF             POLICE- POLICE
         HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL.

3.       INSPECTOR GENERAL OF            POLICE- POLICE
         HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL.

4.       ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE-
         POLICE DEPARTMENT BHOPAL.

5.       COMMANDANT- 13TH BATTALION, VISHESH
         SASHSTRA BAL, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI S.K.SHARMA- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

A. That, the impugned action of the respondents is liable to be condemn and direction is require to be given to the respondents to decide the representation submitted by petitioner at Annexure P/1.

B. That, further the respondent may kindly be directed to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per M.P. special armed forces Service Rules. C . That, any other suitable relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be awarded and cost of this litigation may also be awarded.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 19/01/1998 and at that time, the petitioner was only one year old and accordingly, the mother of the petitioner moved an application

for grant of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on 22/06/2007. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner again made another application on 29/06/2007 for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner. The said application was rejected in the year 2007 itself. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner moved an application on 23/10/2008 for giving appointment on compassionate ground to her nephew. The said application was rejected by order dated 03/11/2008. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner again made an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner, which too was rejected by order dated 26/06/2010. Thereafter, on 03/06/2015, the petitioner moved a mercy application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. This petition is still pending and has not been decided so far.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that on the death of his father, he was only one year old and since, his mother was Pardanashin lady, therefore, she did not file any application for her appointment on compassionate ground and waited

for the petitioner to attain the majority. However, he fairly conceded that the application filed by the mother of the petitioner in the year 2007, 2008 and 2010 were made during his minority.

Be that whatever it may be.

When a specific question was put to the counsel for the petitioner that how the petitioner and his family survived for such a long time, then it was replied that his mother was doing some small works. This submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is self destructive in nature. It was the case of the petitioner that she is Pardanashin lady, but again he submitted that she was doing some small works. If the mother of the petitioner was Pardanashin lady, then there was no occasion for her to do any small work, otherwise there was no reason for her not to apply for appointment on compassionate ground.

Be that whatever it may.

The crux of the matter is that when the family of the dependents can survive for 24 years, then in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Gouri Devi reported in AIR 2022 SC 783 and Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Ors. Vs. Parden Oraon reported in AIR 2021 SC

1876, the belated prayer for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be

considered.

The appointment on compassionate ground is not a normal mode of appointment and is an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution of India as every citizen has a right to participate for appointment in public office. The policy has been formulated to assist the dependents to tied over the crises, which had arisen because of untimely death of their bread winner.

In the present case, the father of the petitioner had died in the year 1998.

The mother of the petitioner could have moved an application for her appointment on compassionate ground, but that was not done. Thus, in the light of Clause 3.1, the application for appointment on compassionate ground can be considered only for a period of seven years from the date of death.

However, the attention of this Court was invited by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the provision which provides that in case where the first child of the deceased/employee is minor on the date of death of deceased/employee, then his application can be considered within a period of one year from the date of attaining majority.

The petitioner has filed the Samgra Portal ID, according to which the petitioner has two elder sisters. Therefore, even in accordance with Clause 3.2 his elder sister was eligible for relaxation of one year from the date of attaining majority. Viewed from every angle, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

Under these circumstances, no case is made out for interfering in the matter.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Pj'S/-

PRINCEE BARAIYA 2022.11.16 18:13:43 -08'00'