Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Chandel vs M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran ... on 13 October, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 13 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 6946 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIVEK CHANDEL (UNEMPLOYED), S/O LATE SHRI
BALIRAM CHANDEL, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O
GRAM POST KANKI, TEHSIL LALBARRA, DISTRICT-
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ CHANDULKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
M.P. POORV KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS :-
1. CHAIRMAN, M.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. RAMPUR
SHAKTI BHAVAN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, M.P. P.K. V.V. CO. LTD.
JABALPUR REGION RAMPUR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER M.P. POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. (O & M)
DIVISION BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.P. POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. (O & M)
WARASEONI, DIVISION WARASEONI DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAKESH TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent, finally heard.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 10/13/2023
5:42:05 PM
2. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was
rejected by order dated 11.7.2022 (Annexure P-5), wherein it is submitted that
as per Clause 3.7 of Compassionate Appointment Policy- 2018, the claim of
petitioner cannot be considered.
3. The petitioner's father died in normal course on 4.6.2009. The
respondents rejected it by holding that as per Clause 3.7 of the policy, except
the cases of death arising out of accident, other claims will not be entertained.
4. Shri Chandulkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
point came up for consideration before the Bench of this court in W.P.
No.5345 of 2016 (Satish Kumar Singh Vs. M.D. M.P. Power Generating
Co. Ltd.), which is based on the Indore Bench judgment passed in W.P.
No.8666 of 2013 decided on 4.7.2016.
5. This court recorded as under :-
"The aforesaid clause makes it very clear that the
preferential treatment will be given to certain category
of persons and the policy does not speak that no
appointment will be given to the persons who die at
home in service. This reflect total non-application of
mind in rejecting case of petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment. It is really unfortunate that
the respondents took ten years to decide the petitioner's
application for compassionate appoint and has rejected
the same on frivolous ground. Resultantly, the matter is
remanded back to the respondents to consider the case
of the petitioner afresh on merits. It is further made
clear that the delay in proceeding the application will
not come in way of the petitioner in the matter of grant
of compassionate appointment.
7. If clause 1.2 of the amended policy of 2013 is
considered, the result would be the same. In this policy
also, there is no prohibition for considering the cases of
Signature Not Verified
employees who died in harness in normal course. In
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 10/13/2023
5:42:05 PM
other words, as per this policy also, there is no bar in
considering the cases of dependents of the employees
who died in harness.On the contrary,said clause gives
preferential treatment to dependents of certain
employees who died in because of accident/murder
etc.over other dependents whose father/mother died in
harness in normal course. Hence, policy aforesaid
nowhere deprives the present petitioner from
consideration.
8. So far the argument relating to delay is concerned, it
is suffice to say that claim of the petitioner is not
rejected on the ground of delay. Hence, I deem it proper
to set aside the impugned order Annexure P/3 and remit
the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider
the case of the petitioner on merits and take a final
decision within three months from the date of
production of copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid direction, petition is disposed of.
No cost."
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. Shri Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
prayer but unable to show as to why the order passed by this Court in Satish
Kumar Singh (supra) cannot be pressed into service.
7. In view of the order passed in Satish Kumar Singh (supra), it is clear
that there is no prohibition for considering the cases of employees who died in
harness in normal course. The petitioner's claim was not rejected on the ground
of delay.
8. Accordingly, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order dated
11.7.2022 (Annexure P-5) and remit the matter back to the competent authority
to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and take a final decision within
90 days from the date of production of copy of this order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 10/13/2023
5:42:05 PM
9. The petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits
of the case.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
bks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 10/13/2023
5:42:05 PM
