Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maya Devi Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 3 rd OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 29220 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MAYA DEVI VISHWAKARMA W/O LATE SHRI
RAMSAJEEVAN VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O WARD NO. 13,
SIYARPATH ROAD, BAIHAR, TEHSIL BAIHAR, DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CO M M I S S I O N ER , AYUSH SANCHALNALAYA
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR, BALAGHAT DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, BALAGHAT DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BALAGHAT
DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT. BHARTI VISHWAKARMA W/O LATE SHRI
RAJ KUMAR VISHWAKARMA R/O WARD NO. 13,
SIYARPATH ROAD, BAIHAR, TEHSIL BAIHAR,
DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI V.K. SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.01.05 17:48:29 IST 5)
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Through this writ petition, petitioner, who happens to be mother-in-law of
respondent No.6, is seeking a negative relief of cancellation of appointment of
respondent No.6 on compassionate basis on death of her husband i.e. son of
the petitioner.
2. Brief facts leading to the present writ petition, are that, one Shri
Ramsajeevan Vishwakarma, husband of the petitioner while working under
respondent No.4, died on 14.02.2005 at Balaghat as per death certificate
(Annexure P-1). Thereafter, petitioner had furnished an affidavit (Annexure P-2)
permitting the authorities to grant compassionate appointment to her eldest son
Rajkumar Vishwakarma. Vide order dated 16.06.2005 (Annexure P-3) Rajkumar
Vishwakarma was given compassionate appointment on the post of
Aushdhalaya Sewak.
3. Annexure P-4 is the family card of Rajkumar Vishwakarma, which was
issued on 17.12.2012 in which names of his mother, two brothers and sister are
mentioned.
4. Under unfortunate circumstances, Rajkumar Vishwakarma too died on
12.10.2020. Prior to his death, he had married private respondent No.6 Smt.
Bharti Vishwakarma, who had in turn, moved an application for grant of
compassionate appointment and payment of death-cum-retirement benefits.
5. After processing her application, she was granted compassionate
appointment, which is the bone of contention between the petitioner and the
Signature Not Verified
respondent No.6.
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.01.05 17:48:29 IST
6. Petitioner filed a complaint to the SHO, Police Station Baihar, as
contained in Annexure P-10 so also to the respondent department as contained
in Annexure P-9, levelling different charges against the private respondent and
alleging that since she has refused to take care of the family of Rajkumar
Vishwakarma, therefore, compassionate appointment be cancelled.
7. It is submitted that neither consent of the petitioner nor that of brothers
and sister of Rajkumar Vishwakarma was obtained before issuing order of
compassionate appointment in favour of respondent No.6.
8. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on the other hand, submits that
there is no illegality in the impugned order inasmuch as firstly request of Maya
Devi i.e. the petitioner to grant her compassionate appointment cannot be
accepted as she has already crossed or is about to cross age of superannuation
as is evident from the cause title, where her age is shown as 62 years. She has
failed to show that Anil and Shailendra, who at the time of the death of their
brother Rajkumar Vishwakarma were aged about 32 and 30 years, respectively,
were unemployed and dependent on the deceased Rajkumar Vishwakarma.
9. Similarly, it is not shown through any documentary evidence that sister
Poornam Devi too was dependent on the deceased Rajkumar Vishwakarma
though at the time of his death, Poornam Devi was aged about 27 years.
10. It is further submitted that there is no averment that whether Maya Devi
is receiving family pension on account of death of her husband Shri
Ramsajeevan Vishwakarma, who was working was Varisth Aushdhi Sanyojak at
the time of his death on 14.02.2005.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State
Signature Not Verified
SAN
of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, has held that ''The favourable
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.01.05 17:48:29 IST
treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has
a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against
destitution.''
12. Thus, when tested on this touchstone then, it is evident that grant of
compassionate appointment has been held by the Supreme Court in Auditor
General of India and others Vs. G. Ananta Rajeshwara Rao, AIR 1994
SC 1521 to be generally available to the son, daughter and widow of the
deceased who have been termed to be justifiable claimants.
13. Thus, in the light of this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is
evident that upon death of Rajkumar Vishwakarma, justifiable claimants could
be his son, daughter and widow. In the present case, there is no evidence that
any son or daughter of Rajkumar Vishwakarma is available, therefore, widow
will be the natural choice for appointment.
14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
decision of Calcutta High Court in Nandini Paul Vs. The United Bank of
India and others, decided on 02.08.2019 in W.P. No.428 of 2018 to submit
that once a person appointed under the scheme of compassionate appointment,
refuses to maintain other legal heirs of the deceased then, that can be treated to
be a disqualification for continuation of compassionate appointment.
15. However, in the present case, facts are different. Neither any
undertaking is brought on record showing that respondent No.6 had undertaken
to maintain the widow mother or brothers and sister of the deceased nor the
petitioner has brought any policy on record to substantiate her claim that her
case is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Calcutta High
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Court in case of Nandini Paul (supra). Thus, said judgment is distinguishable
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
on its own facts.
Date: 2023.01.05 17:48:29 IST
16. Thus, when judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Auditor General
of India and others Vs. G. Ananta Rajeshwara Rao (supra) is taken into
consideration then, wife being a natural successor to the deceased husband and
in absence of her children, is eligible to seek compassionate appointment, grant
of compassionate appointment in favour of wife of the deceased cannot be said
to be illegal or arbitrary, calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this
Court.
17. In view of above, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.01.05 17:48:29 IST
