Smt. Ankita Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14995 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                            ON THE 12 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 4009 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SMT. ANKITA JHARIYA W/O SHRI ATUL KUMAR
                          RAIKWAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          UNEMPLOYED R/O HOUSE NO. 353/5 STATE BANK
                          COLONY   MADHUVAN    PARK,  SINGLE    STORY
                          BALDEVBAGH   JABALPUR   DISTRICT   JABALPUR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI A.P. PANDEY - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                PRINCIPAL     SECRETARY   CO-OPERATION
                                DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    COMMISSIONER COOPERATIVE AND REGISTRAR
                                CO   OPERATIVE   SOCIETIES VINDHYACHAL
                                BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    JOINT COMMISSIONER CO OPERATIVE AND
                                JOINT  REGISTRAR C OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
                                JABALPUR DIVIION, CIVIC CENTRE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    COLLECTOR    JABALPUR DISTRICT-JABALPUR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI AMIT RAIZADA - PANEL LAWYER)

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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/14/2023 5:56:54 PM

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/7).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mother of the petitioner late Smt. Chhaya Jhariya was working with the respondents who died in harness on 07.12.2016 while working against the post of Assistant Grade-II. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner being sole bread earner of the family, the present petitioner was fully dependent upon her mother and therefore, she has no source of income. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents with an application for appointment on compassionate basis. As no decision on the application of the petitioner was

being taken, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.18365/2021. This Court disposed of the said writ petition i.e. W.P.No.18365/2021 on 16.09.2021 (Annexure P/6) directing the respondents therein to take into consideration the application of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of Larger Bench of this Court in W.A.No.756/2019 (Meenakshi Dubey vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and Others) dated 02.03.2020. Thereafter, the respondents vide impugned order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/7) has rejected the claim of the petitioner precisely on the ground that as deceased employee died while leaving behind her husband who is a pensioner, the present petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of appointment on compassionate basis.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the reasons which have been assigned in order to decline the claim of the petitioner are grossly misconceived inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner has deserted the present petitioner and is living with some other lady and therefore, the petitioner

Signature Not Verified has no source of income and thus, she is entitled to be appointed on Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/14/2023 5:56:54 PM

compassionate basis.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the petitioner initially approached this Court alleging violation of the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court in W.A.No.756/2019 (Meenakshi Dubey vs. M.P. Poorve Keshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and Others) dated 02.03.2020 and therefore, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis. In terms of the order passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered and vide order dated 25.01.2022, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. It is contended by the counsel that there is an affidavit of father of the petitioner which has been brought on record as Annexure R/1 dated 12.11.2021 which clearly reflects that the father of the petitioner has admitted in the affidavit that he was working as a government servant and has been superannuated on 30.04.2020 and also receiving the pension. In the entire affidavit there is no whisper by the father of the petitioner that he is living with some other lady or has entered into second wedlock. It is further contended by the counsel that the petitioner after receiving the return, with an after thought, has made a futile attempt to set up a story in the rejoinder and therefore, counsel submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. No other point argued or pressed by both the parties.

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

7. To have the handle of controversy, it is first apposite to deal with the order passed by this Court on earlier occasion. This Court while passing an order dated 16.09.2021 in W.P.No.18365/2021 (Annexure P/6), directed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/14/2023 5:56:54 PM

respondents to take into consideration the petitioner's grievance in the light of the judgment of Larger Bench of this Court in W.A.No.756/2019 (Meenakshi Dubey vs. M.P. Poorve Keshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and Others) dated 02.03.2020. Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by this Court on earlier occasion, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and have passed an order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/7).

8. A perusal of the order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/7) reflects that the respondents have categorically concluded that the case of the petitioner was never declined on the ground that the petitioner was a married daughter, therefore, she was not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis and the respondents while dealing with the petitioner's grievance on merits, has rejected the same.

9. The respondents while passing the impugned order has concluded in following manner:-

" jkT; 'kklu }kjk tkjh ifji= fnukad 29 flracj 2014 dh dafMdk 2 ls ;g Li"V gS fd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr nsus dk mn`ns'; 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr@iRuh ds ikyu iks"k.k dks lqfuf'pr djuk gSA Jherh vafdrk >kfj;k dh eka Jherh Nk;k >kfj;k ds ifr Jh pks[ ksyky i`Fkd ls lsok esa layXu gksus ,oa isa'ku /kkjh gksus ds dkj.k viuh iRuh Jherh Nk;k >kkfj;k ij vkfJr ugha Fks vkSj bl dkj.k mudh larkuksa dks Hkh vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gSA Jherh vafdrk >kfj;k }kjk Hkh vius vkosnu esa vius firk }kjk rF;ksa dks fNikdj nwljh 'kknh fd;s tkus ,oa muds firk ds }kjk mUgas dksbZ vkfFkZd lgk;rk ugha fn;s tkus ds dkj.k vius ifr ,oa cPpksa dh ns[ kHkky fd;s tkus ds fy;s vuqdaik fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj Jherh vafdrk >kfj;k }kjk vuqdaik fu;qfDr iznku fd;s tkus dk vkosnu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx }kjk vuqdaik fu;qfDr iznku fd;s tkus gsrq fu/kkZfjr izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i ugha gSA"

10. A perusal of the operative paragraph of the order it reflects that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the deceased employee died leaving behind her husband who was also a government servant and receiving pension and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of appointment on compassionate basis in terms of the circular dated 29.09.2014.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/14/2023 5:56:54 PM

11. The respondents while filing return has also filed an affidavit of father of the petitioner as Annexure R/1 and in the said affidavit, there is unequivocal admission by father of the petitioner that he having been superannuated on 30.04.2020, is receiving pension.

12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have not committed any error while passing the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/7). Therefore, in absence of any error, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis has been rightly rejected as the father of the petitioner is pensioner. The affidavit of the father of the petitioner which has been brought on record by the respondents as Annexure R/1 has not been disputed by filing any counter affidavit.

13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/14/2023 5:56:54 PM