Siddharth Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9977 MP

                                                              1
                          IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                   ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 27199 of 2019

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SIDDHARTH MISHRA S/O MOTISHARAN MISHRA,
                         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
                         VILLAGE CHILLAKHURD POST ATRAILA 12 TEONTHAR
                         DIST REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE )

                         AND
                         1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
                                DEPT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                         2.     COMMISSIONER    PUBLIC   INSTRUCTIONS,
                                GAUTAM NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.     C O LLEC TO R R E W A DISTT-REWA            (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                         4.     DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER REWA DISTT-
                                REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI AMAN PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER )

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

The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for the following reliefs:-

(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 7/6/2023 1:17:57 PM

quash the orders impugned dated 04.09.2013 (Ann.P-3) and dated 15.04.2019 (Ann.P-7).

(ii) To direct the respondent to reconsider the claim of petitioner according to policy dated 10.06.94 prevailing at the time of death of his father.

(iii) To direct the respondent to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner and he may be appoint to the petitioner any suitable post with all consequential service benefits.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction,

which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, may also be passed in the interest of justice.

2. The facts, as elaborated in the petition, reflect that the father of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School Rithi, District Rewa, who died in harness on 6.6.1998. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was minor aged about 4 years. The petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 2013 and accordingly submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 30.7.2013. The application was duly forwarded and ultimately rejected vide impugned order dated 4.9.2013 contained in (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the claim of the petitioner is time barred in terms of clause 7.1 of the Policy dated 18.8.2008. The petitioner again filed an application before Collector, Rewa. The said application was forwarded to District Education Officer, Rewa, who vide order dated 15.4.2019 contained in (Annexure P-7) rejected the application of the petitioner. Thus, assailing the orders dated 4.9.2013 and 15.4.2013, this petition has been filed. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 7/6/2023 1:17:57 PM

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue pertaining to the applicability of the Policy is no more res integra as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank and others Vs. Promila and another - 2020 (2) SCC 729 and the policy which is in vogue on the date of the death of the deceased employee, is required to be considered.

4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, in terms of Clause 7.1 of the Policy dated 18.8.2008, the claim of the petitioner has been declined whereas as the father of the petitioner expired way back on 6.6.1998, therefore, the Policy dated 10.6.1994 ought to have been taken into consideration, inasmuch as the said policy was in currency on the date when the father of the petitioner passed away. It is contended by the counsel that the Policy dated 10.6.1994 takes care of an eventuality where the dependent of the deceased employee is minor and accordingly in terms of Clause 5 of the Policy dated 10.6.1994, the claim of the petitioner was required to be considered. Counsel has placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 15429 of 2018 (Monika Shukla Vs. The State of M.P. and others) decided on 17.11.2021 and W.P. No. 21039 of 2012 (Mahesh Prasad Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 19.2.2018.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's case was duly considered in terms of Clause 7.1 of the Policy dated

18.8.2008 and it was found that the claim of the petitioner was time barred as the application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted after a lapse of 7 years after death of deceased employee. It is, thus, contended that the order impugned having been passed in conformity with the provision of Policy dated 18.8.2008, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Signature Not Verified

6. No other point is pressed by the counsel for the parties. Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 7/6/2023 1:17:57 PM

7 . Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

8. In the present case, undisputedly, the father of the petitioner died on 6.6.1998 while in service. The petitioner at the time of death of his father was aged about 4 years. He attained majority in the year 2013 and accordingly submitted application seeking compassionate appointment on 30.7.2013. The said application has been turned down on the ground that in terms of Clause 7.1 of the Policy dated 18.8.2018, the application was required to be submitted within 7 years from the date of death of the deceased employee and the application has been submitted beyond period of 7 years.

9. The order impugned has been passed while taking into consideration the provision of Policy dated 18.8.2008. The applicability of the Policy has been taken into consideration by the Apex Court in the cases of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Ashish Awasthi - (2022) 2 SCC 157 and Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr - (2020) 2 SCC 729. The Apex Court in Indian Bank and others Vs. Promila and another (supra) in Para 20 has observed as under:-

"20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles applicable to

the cases of compassionate employment i.e. succour being provided

at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate

employment not being an alternate method of public employment.

If these factors are kept in mind, it would be noticed that the

respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant stage of time, as

per the norms, to deal with the unfortunate situation which they

were faced with. Thus, looked under any Schemes, the respondents Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 7/6/2023 1:17:57 PM

cannot claim benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the

relevant Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee,

which could have been considered to be applicable, in view of the

judgment of this Court in Canara Bank [Canara Bank v. M.

Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] . It

is not for the courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from

the terms thereof in judicial review, as has been recently

emphasised by this Court in State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand [State

of H.P. v. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S)

621]."

10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was required to be considered in view of the Policy, which was prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee i.e. 6.6.1998.

11. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Apex Court, the impugned orders dated 4.9.2013 contained in (Annexure P-3) and 15.4.2013 contained in (Annexure P-7) are here by set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to take into consideration the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the Policy which was prevalent on the date of death of the father of the petitioner i.e. 6.6.1998 and take a decision afresh. Let entire exercise be completed within 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

12. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 7/6/2023 1:17:57 PM

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE PB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 7/6/2023 1:17:57 PM