Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhineet Patil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 August, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 17 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 1216 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ABHINEET PATIL S/O LATE SATISH PATIL, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, ADDRESS C-1 ADITI
APARTMENT, MISR NAGAR, ANUPURNA ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(MS. DIXITA GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER DIRECTOR M.P. PASCHIM
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANY LIMITED
POLOGROUND INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANY LIMITED
MPPKVVCL KHARGONE, (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER M.P. PASCHIM
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANY LIMITED,
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS) )
T h is appeal coming on for admission/hearing this day, JUSTICE
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 8/18/2023
5:30:52 PM
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 2(1) of the
M.P. Uchha Nyayalaya(Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 being
aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.14596/2023, whereby the claim of the petitioner for non-
consideration for appointment of the appellant on compassionate was rejected.
02. Facts of the case in short are as under:-
2.1. The father of the appellant, late Satish Patil was working as
Divisional Accountant, Grade - III in the then M.P. State Electricity Board. He
died on 17.12.2010 during his service. He left his wife and two sons. The
appellant submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on
03.01.2011 under the Policy prevailing at that relevant point of time dated
30.01.1997.
2.2. The application of the appellant remained pending for consideration
because the Policy dated 30.01.1997 was under suspension. Thereafter, the
M.P. State Electricity Board was bifurcated into different companies and the
new companies came up with their own policies for compassionate appointment
in the year 2013. Under the said policy, the compassionate appointment has
been restricted to the dependents of the deceased employee who died due to
casualty, electrical accident, vehicle accident during the working hours etc.
during the period w.e.f. 15.11.2000 to 10.04.2012. Since the case of the
appellant was not falling under any of the category as the father died under
normal circumstances, therefore, the respondents vide communication dated
27.02.2015 has rejected the application for grant of compassionate
appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single
Signature Not Verified
Judge while passing the impugned order did not condone the delay as it was
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 8/18/2023
5:30:52 PM
bonafide and has rejected the writ petition stating that due to lapse of time, no
claim for grant of compassionate appointment survives. She further submitted
that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the compassionate
appointment should be considered under the policy prevailing at the relevant
point of time and shall not be considered as per new policy. To buttress her
contention, she further placed reliance on the judgment of Malaya Nanda
Sethy Vs. State of Orissa and Others [2022 LiveLaw(SC) 522.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. It is a trite law that compassionate appointment is carved out as
exception to general law. Two well recognized contingencies for grant of
compassionate appointment are:- (i) appointment on compassionate grounds to
meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the
bread-winner while in service ; (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to
meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread
winner. [See : 2008 (13) SSC 730 (V. Sivamurthy Vs State Of A.P.)].
6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director
M.P. Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company and others Vs. Ashiq
Shah and another, 2021(3) MPLJ, 532 has held as under:-
"[9] It is trite that the basic purpose of compassionate appointment is
to provide immediate helping hand to the family in distress. The
appointment cannot be directed to be given after more than two
decades. There cannot be a reservation of vacancy till a candidate
becomes major after number of years. In (2000) 7 SCC 192 (Sanjay
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), the Apex Court opined as under:-
"3...this Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate
appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee
to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner
who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the
petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 8/18/2023
5:30:52 PM
significant to notice that on the date when the first application was
made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988, the petitioner was a minor and
was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner.
There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner
becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some
specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to
see that the family gets immediate relief."
(emphasis supplied)
A Division Bench of this Court took same view in 2003(1) MPLJ 342
[Beni Lal Bamney Vs. Union of India and others] and 2005(4) MPLJ
575 (Riazuddin Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others].
[10] By passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has
directed consideration of respondent No.1 on compassionate ground
after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of respondent
No.1. In view of principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we
are unable to countenance the order of learned writ court. No
directions could have been issued for consideration on compassionate
ground after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of
respondent No.1. The very purpose of grant of compassionate
appointment will be defeated if claims of compassionate appointment
after decades are entertained.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State Of
Haryana and others, 1994 (4) SCC, 138, in para 6 has held as under:-
"For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified
in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested
right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to
enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the
time of the death of the sole 1 (1989)4SCC468:1989SCC(L&S)662:
(1989)11ATC878: 1989)4SLR327 breadwinner, the compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time
and after the crisis is over.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of
U.P., 2009 (6) SCC, 481, has poignantly held as under:-
"12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be
reasonable and proximate to the time of death of the bread earner of the
family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make
financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis
occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this,
however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 8/18/2023
5:30:52 PM
treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in
Government service."
(emphasis supplied)
9. The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
and others, 2000 (7) SCC 192, has opined as under:-
"This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate
appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee
to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner
who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the
petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also
significant to notice that on the date when the first application was
made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988,the petitioner was a minor and
was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner.
There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner
becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some
specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to
see that the family gets immediate relief."
(emphasis supplied)
10. A Division Bench of this Court took same view in 2003(1) MPLJ
342 [Beni Lal Bamney Vs. Union of India and others] and 2005(4) MPLJ
575 (Riazuddin Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others].
11. In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law, the learned Single
Judge had not committed any error in the passing the impugned order.
Therefore, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 8/18/2023
5:30:52 PM
