Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 9910 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
RADHESHYAM S/O LATE SHRI MOHAN LAL SAHU,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
R/O. BATKAKHAPA TEHSIL HARRAI, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI M.R. VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
SECRETARY OF MPEB DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FIN AN CE MPEKVVCL
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (O AND M) CIRCLE
MPEKVVCL SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SMT. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by
the petitioner claiming issuance of writ to the respondents to grant
Signature Not Verified
SAN
compassionate appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post.
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.01.07 12:25:18 IST
2. It is submitted that petitioner's father Shri Mohan Lal Sahu died on
31.10.1991 (Annexure P-2) while working as Line Attendant Grade II under
erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. It is further submitted that
petitioner had moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment,
which was decided by order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-4) mentioning
therein that w.e.f. 01.09.2000, there is a ban on extending benefit of
compassionate appointment. Thereafter, petitioner had made a fresh
representation claiming compassionate appointment as contained in Annexure
P-3 but, that has been arbitrarily rejected.
3. Petitioner's contention is that petitioner be extended benefit of
compassionate appointment.
4. Smt. Swati Aseem George, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1-State, in her turn, submits that the purpose of compassionate appointment
is to mitigate immediate hardship on account of loss of bread earner and it is
not an alternative mode of recruitment, therefore, after long delay of 30 years,
claim for compassionate appointment is not maintainable.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance
Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and
another, AIR 1994 SC 2148 , that if rules or guidelines have been framed
regarding compassionate appointment, it can only be given consistently with
such rules.
6. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh,
(1997) 8 SCC 85, it is held that ''The rule of appointments to public service is
that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route
Signature Not Verified
SAN
through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.01.07 12:25:18 IST
can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have
been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is
provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating
one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family
which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its
sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of
providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative
mode of recruitment to public employment.''
7. It is evident from Annexure P-3 that pension is being paid to the widow
of the deceased. At the time of death of the deceased, his four children were 8,
6, 4 and 1 years. Admittedly, the eldest one attained age of majority in 2001. On
that date, there was no provision for grant of compassionate appointment.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board Vs.
Krishna Devi, (2002) 10 SCC 246, has held that the absence of extant rules
or instructions at the time of death of the employee, there can be no claim for
compassionate appointment.
9. In view of such facts when compassionate appointment is provided only
to give succour to the family which suddenly plunges into penury due to
untimely death of its sole breadwinner, at this distance of time showing any
compassion towards the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, will
amount to opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment,
which has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in Haryana State
Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh (supra) and Director of
Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar, AIR 1988 SC 2230.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
10. Thus, when tested on the touchstone of these judgments, petition is
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Date: 2023.01.07 12:25:18 IST
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.01.07 12:25:18 IST
