Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 October, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 18 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 13905 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
RAKESH SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SUNDER LAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILLAGE CHAKAUNDH
(KANDHAIPUR), POST OFFICE CHAKLA TEHSIL KARBI,
DISTRICT - CHITRAKOOT (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES SATPURA BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR REWA, DISTRICT - REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER GANGA KACHHAR,
DISTRICT - REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIGHT MACHINERY
HAND PUMP AND GATE REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - PANEL LAWYER)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 10/19/2023
2:53:34 PM
With the consent, finally heard.
2. This is second visit of the petitioner for the same grievance. The
petitioner previously filed W.P. No.9222 of 2009 (Rakesh Singh v. State of
M.P. and others) seeking compassionate appointment and said petition was
disposed of by issuing direction to the competent authority to consider and
decide claim of petitioner contained in Annexure-P/6 and Annexure-P/7 within a
period of two months. Since order was not complied with, petitioner filed
Contempt Petition No.2370 of 2013 which was disposed of because in between
respondents passed the rejection order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-P/1) which
is impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two fold submissions.
Firstly, the sole reason of rejection is that petitioner did not prefer application
for compassionate appointment within seven years as per policy dated
23.07.2001 whereas the mathematical calculation clearly shows that petitioner
has in fact filed the application well within seven years from the date of death of
the petitioner. Petitioner's father died in harness on 28.12.1995 and even as per
the date mentioned in the impugned order, petitioner preferred application on
10.10.2002. Thus, impugned order suffers from mathematical as well as legal
error. Secondly, the policy of compassionate appointment prevailing at the time
of death of petitioner's father should have been applied which is not pregnant
with any such limitation to prefer the application.
4. Shri Deepak Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer and
urged that in the previous round, the petitioner challenged the order dated
30.05.2009 (Annexure-P/11) and this Court did not set aside the order.
Secondly, in view of recent judgment of Supreme Court in 2023 SCC OnLine
Signature Not Verified
SC 219 (State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari & others), at this belated stage,
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 10/19/2023
2:53:34 PM
no relief is due to the petitioner.
5. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.
6. No doubt, petitioner in the previous round challenged the order dated
30.05.2009 and this Court did not set aside the said order in specific. However,
the direction of this Court makes it clear that despite the said order impugned in
the previous round, the Court thought it proper for issuance of direction to
consider and decide the claim of petitioner. In obedience thereof, respondents
have already passed a fresh order. Thus, hyper technical objection regarding
non-setting aside order dated 30.05.2009 (Annexure-P/11) pales into
insignificance.
7. Shri Deepak Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer did not dispute that
mathematically counting from date of death 28.12.1995 to date of submission of
application i.e. 10.10.2002, the application is well within seven years of time.
This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Previously, he filed the
petition immediately after his application was rejected on 30.05.2009. W.P.
No.9222 of 2009 was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the
claim for compassionate appointment and in turn, claim was considered and
erroneously decided on 19.02.2014. The petitioner was not a 'fence sitter'. He
continuously knocked the doors of this Court for his grievance. In this
backdrop, judgment of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) is of no assistance to the
respondents.
8. Since, impugned order 19.02.2014 (Annexure-P/1) is pregnant with a
mathematical error of calculation of time, said order cannot sustain judicial
scrutiny. Resultantly, order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-P/1) is set aside. The
respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner for compassionate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 10/19/2023
2:53:34 PM
appointment on merits within 90 days from the date of production of copy of
this order and passed a fresh order in accordance with law.
9. The petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits
of this case.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
HK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 10/19/2023
2:53:34 PM
