Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Singh vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra ... on 16 January, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 590 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
GAURAV SINGH S/O LATE SHRI
VINOD KUMR SINGH, AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED R/O 247-9B, SAKET
NAGAR, HABIBGANJ BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SARVGYA JAIN- ADVOCATE)
AND
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH
1. ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR NISHTHA PARISAR
GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH
2. ITS DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER CITY DIVISION
(WEST) VIDYA NAGAR BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE APPEARED)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner by filing the present petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India taking exception to order dated
09.10.2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Deputy Manager, Madhya
Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd., Bhopal
whereby an application for compassionate appointment of the
petitioner is rejected. As per compassionate appointment policy,
2018 it has been referred in the impugned order that elder brother of
the petitioner Pawan Singh (son of deceased employee) is already
working as Loco Pilot in Central Railway, therefore, petitioner did
not entitle for compassionate appointment.
Precisely, stated facts of the case are that the petitioner's
father Vinod Kumar Singh was working on the post of Lab
Attendant and died due to heart attack on 29.11.2015. Deceased
employee left behind three sons and wife. Sons are Pawan Kumar
Singh (aged 40 years), Abhishek Kumar Singh (aged 37 years) and
wife Smt. Vimlesh Singh.
After death of his father, petitioner preferred a representation
for compassionate appointment in 2016 stating the fact that his
educational qualification is B.E. (Mechanical) and, therefore, he
seeks appointment in place of his father. Said application is being
considered and thereafter rejected by the impugned order.
Therefore, this petition has been preferred.
It is submitted that learned counsel for the petitioner that
authority erred in passing the impugned order and rejected the claim
of the petitioner on the ground that his elder brother is already in
employment in Central Railway Loco Pilot, therefore, petitioner is
not entitled for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the
petitioner submits that elder brother has left family long back in
2012 itself when father was alive and, therefore, father executed a
Will in which his claim was over looked and he was excluded from
the family.
He relied upon the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench in W.P.No.5089/2022 (Pradeep Kumar Mishra Vs.
State of M.P. and another) and seeks parity
Heard.
Compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India because a person gets
appointment dehors statutory rules for appointment and without
facing regular and open competition. Purpose of compassionate
appointment is benevolent in nature, to give immediate succour to
the family and to help the family out of financial distress.
Here in the present case, father of the petitioner died in 2015.
Elder brother of the petitioner aged 40 years is working in Central
Railway as Loco Pilot which appears to be a Class-II post.
Employment of another brother aged 37 years has not been
disclosed just like present petitioner but on close scrutiny it appears
that petitioner himself is a Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical
stream, therefore, he is not a man of ordinary education. He is
professionally qualified.
Therefore, it is not the case where family must have been
facing financial distress for so long. More than 7 years have passed
and question of delay assumes importance in the present set of facts.
Purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate relief
to the family in distress especially financial distress, because if any
earning family member goes then it is catastrophic to the whole
family and therefore, to give immediate relief to an affected family,
concept of compassionate appointment is devised which otherwise
dehors the equal treatment before the law. Even otherwise, it cannot
be claimed as a matter of right.
Delay also comes as stumbling block in the way of petitioner.
This aspect has been taken care of by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Central Coalfield Limited through its Chairman and
Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Smt Parden Oraon reported in
2021 SCC Online SC 299, wherein Apex Court has deprecated the
practice of giving compassionate appointment after a significant
lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
Recently Division Bench of this Court (Indore Bench) also
passed an order dated 07.06.2021 in W.A.No.10/2020 (Managing
Director, Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran
Company & Ors. Vs. Ashiq Shah & another) also took same view
by saying that inordinate delay disentitles the petitioner to claim
compassionate appointment.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, where
petitioner himself aged 33 years and professionally qualified as B.E.
(Mechanical) and not only this, his elder brother is also a Loco Pilot
in Central Railway then cumulatively no case for interference is
made out. So far as submission that brother is living separately or
left the family long back cannot be used as a ground to get an
appointment dehors the rules. Even otherwise, compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is the
discretion of employer coupled with the dire needs of employee that
forms the basis for consideration for appointment on compassionate
basis. Acquisition of Professional Qualification renders the case of
financial distress vulnerable.
Judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not of any help to
the cause of petitioner since it moves into different factual realm.
Here the petitioner is a professionally qualified man and much delay
has been caused.
Cumulatively, no case for interference is made out.
Admission declined and petition stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
RAVIKANrk
Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=a8d9b14ac58cf947b7ed23741112684b527
7de5c828d98b25803bbc1b20fce6e,
T KEWAT
pseudonym=4765BE6D8978BB39BCB2A90E8E9544
E8752FBD38,
serialNumber=B4ADF2781367121A8C6194CA0D70
E6499C424F691EB777334632E1B1713FB624,
cn=RAVIKANT KEWAT
Date: 2023.01.18 10:41:58 +05'30'
