Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mansi Shrivas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 21 st OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2717 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
MANSI SHRIVAS D/O LATE SHRI PURUSHOTTAM
SHRIVAS, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYMENT R/O BEHIND SHYAM TALKIES
GANDHI WARD, KANDELI, DISTT. NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIRUDDHA PRASAD PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (PERSONNEL)-1
SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAMPUR, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (HUMAN RESOURCES
AND ADMINISTRATION) M.P.POWER
GENERATING CO. LTD. DISTT-JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. M.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THR. ITS
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (PERSONNEL-1)
SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAMPUR, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (S.S) DIVISION (C.C.) P.
EAST REGION, ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY LTD, DISTT-NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ROHIT JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
Signature Not Verified
NO.1 AND SHRI RUDRA PRATAP DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
SAN
RESPONDENT NO.3)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2023.04.24 10:49:26 IST
2
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the action of
the respondents in denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner and
therefore, prayer is made to quash clause 2.5 of the impugned policy (Annexure
P/9) and letter dated 26/5/2014 (Annexure P/5). It is further prayed that
respondents be directed to provide/grant compassionate appointment to the
petitioner in place her father as per policy dated 30/01/1997.
2. Shri Aniruddha Prasad Pandey submits that as per the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Secretary to Government the
Department of Education (Primary) and others vs. Bheemesh @
Bheemappa, 2021 SCC Online SC 1264 policy which was invoked at the
time of death of the father will be applicable to the petitioner and her case for
compassionate appointment should be considered in terms of the policy of
1997 and respondents are not entitled to consider her case in terms of the
policy of 2014.
3. Shri Rudra Pratap Dwivedi for the answering respondents in his turns
submits that there was a complete ban on grant of compassionate appointment
continuing since 1/9/2000. Petitioner's father admittedly passed away on
16/5/2002. This ban was lifted in the year 2013. When ban was lifted then
looking to the requirement of privatisation of place of various employees who
had died in harness from 2002-2013, and looking to limited capacity of the
employer to absorb the persons on the basis of compassionate grounds a
policy was framed prescribing therein that the benefit of compassionate
Signature Not Verified
SAN
appointment will be admissible only to those persons, who died due to accident
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2023.04.24 10:49:26 IST while working and in terms of that policy, compassionate appointment has been
extended. It is submitted that petitioner's mother is getting family pension.
Therefore, she has no claim to seek compassionate appointment as a matter of
right.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Ashish Awasthi
Livelaw 2021 SC 659 has held that compassionate appointment is not a
alternate mode of recruitment, two factors are required to be seen one is penury
because purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to ensure that the
family is not left eye and dry on sudden demise of the bread earned and
another is to see the well being of the family of the deceased employee. When
these factors are examined then it is evident that time is of the essence.
Admittedly, death of the bread earned took place on 16/5/2002. Therefore,
after 16 years and this petition was filed it cannot be said that family was living
in penury specially when admittedly mother of the petitioner was getting family
pension.
5. It is also come on record as has been submitted by the Officer In charge
on his affidavit dated 19/4/2023 that claim for compassionate appointment as
was put forth by the mother of the petitioner and she never challenged that by
undertaking any appropriate proceedings.
6. Thus, taking this fact into consideration that there is no penury in the
family, widow is getting family pension secondly, there is lapse of substantial
time when the claim is put forth and thirdly, policy though challenged, has a
rational of providing compassionate appointment to that category of people,
who are more needy, who had sacrificed their life while meeting an accident in a
Signature Not Verified
SAN
hazardous industry life electricity industry as compared to others who died in
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2023.04.24 10:49:26 IST
harness during the course of the employment but not on account of the rigors
of the employment and thus there is no justification for quashing the policy of
2013. As held by Supreme Court since compassionate appointment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right and with the lapse of substantial time after death of
the father of the petitioner, and taking this fact into consideration that family is
not lived in penury but is getting family pension to take care of themselves, this
petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby
dismissed.
7. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
m/-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2023.04.24 10:49:26 IST
