Prashant Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10962 MP

                                                                   1
                            IN     THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                     ON THE 17 th OF JULY, 2023
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 11864 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           PRASHANT MISHRA S/O LATE RAM BHUVAN MISHRA,
                           AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT LIG
                           SHANTI VIHAR COLONY PADRA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI VIBUDHENDRA MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
                                 VALLABH    BHAWAN,   BHOPAL   (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    COMMISSIONER     TRIBAL                   DEVELOPMENT
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    COLLECTOR REWA REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI PRANJAL DIWAKAR - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                           following:
                                                                    ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:-

"(i) Direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner without further delay and grant him the consequential benefits as admissible to the petitioner.

(ii) Issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order as it deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Quash the impugned order dated 23.01.2018."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 7/20/2023 1:19:53 PM

2. The facts as detailed in the petition reflect that the petitioner is nephew of late Rambhuvan Mishra who was working as Accountant, with Tribal Welfare Department, Rewa. Late Rambhuvan Mishra died while in service and upon the death of late Rambhuvan Mishra, the present petitioner moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate basis. The said application of the petitioner was turned down vide order dated 23.01.2018 which is impugned in the present petition as Annexure A/4.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure A/4) has been passed in complete ignorance of report dated 15.11.2016 which is contained in covering memo filed by the

petitioner vide documents No.18763/2022. It is further contended by the counsel that an inquiry was conducted on 15.11.2016 and it was found that the present petitioner who was nominated in the service record of the deceased employee and he was adopted by the deceased employee, therefore, he was the sole legal heir of the deceased employee. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the deceased employee himself nominated the name of the present petitioner in his service record for the purposes of all admissible benefits. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis could not have been turned down by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner is not biological son of the deceased employee. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L. Debi Prasad (dead by LRs) vs. Smt. Tribeni Devi and Others reported in (1970) 1 SCC 677.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the present petition is grossly misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner being not legally adopted son of the deceased employee, cannot claim Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 7/20/2023 1:19:53 PM

appointment as a matter of right on compassionate basis. It is contended by the counsel that the Collector Rewa while considering all aspect of the matter, has rightly concluded that the petitioner cannot take advantage of appointment on compassionate basis on the alleged ground that he is legally adopted son of the deceased employee. It is further contended by the counsel for the respondent/State that the petitioner is biological son of Mr. Vinod Kumar Mishra and therefore, in absence of a valid adoption, the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed on compassionate basis.

5. No other point is pressed by both the parties.

6. Hear the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the order impugned dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure A/4) reflects that the authority while considering the application of the petitioner has taken into consideration the documents which are detailed in paragraph 2 of the order and the same documents referred to, in inquiry report dated 15.11.2016 of Jila Shashaktikaran Adhikari.

8. A perusal of the report dated 15.11.2016 reflects that the said officer while considering the fact that the present petitioner was nominated in service record by the deceased employee and the present petitioner being nephew of the deceased employee, thus, concluded that the petitioner is sole

legal heir of the deceased employee. Such findings which are in form of declaration as contended in paragraph 3 of the report dated 15.11.2016, in the considered opinion of this Court are misconceived. The Authority ought to have considered that seeking such a declaration the proper remedy was to take recourse to the competent Civil Court seeking declaration. Yet, in absence of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 7/20/2023 1:19:53 PM

any power, Jila Shashaktikaran Adhikari Rewa ventured upon to declare the petitioner to be sole legal heir of the deceased employee.

9. Mere, nomination in the service record is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner is adopted son of the deceased employee and if the petitioner was adopted son of the deceased employee, the petitioner was required to approach the competent Court seeking declaration to that effect.

10. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court that the Collector Rewa did not commit any error while passing the impugned order dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure A/4).

11. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner inasmuch as it is for the petitioner to establish on the basis of evidence that he was adopted by the deceased employee during his life time.

12. In view of the aforesaid, interference is declined and accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court seeking declaration in his favour to the effect that he is adopted son of the deceased employee and if such a declaration is granted in favour of the present petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive the prayer by submitting an application afresh before the respondents for appointment on compassionate basis.

13. With the aforesaid liberty, the present petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 7/20/2023 1:19:53 PM