Suresh Mandloi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15329 MP

                                 - : 1 :-
                                                        W.P. No.5579/2021


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT INDORE
                             BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                 ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                  WRIT PETITION No. 5579 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
SURESH MANDLOI S/O LATE SHRI MANDIYA MANDLOI, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, GRAM - KHANDLAI, POST PIPLI TEH.
GANDHAWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....PETITIONER
(SHRI PRASANNA        J.MEHTA,     LEARNED    COUNSEL     FOR      THE
PETITIONER.)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
1.
   VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
   COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTOR DHAR
2.
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JANJATIYA KARYA VIBHAG DHAR
3.
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SHANTNU CHOURASIA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE.)


      This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
                                 ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.10.2018 whereby his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

1. Father of the petitioner - Late Mandia Mandloi was appointed on

- : 2 :-

W.P. No.5579/2021

the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and was working as Superintendent of Boys' Hostel for OBC, Badnawar, District Dhar. He died in harness on 25.6.2005 due to an accident. After his death, his wife - Smt. Geetabai and two minor children i.e. present petitioner and a daughter - Sonu remained in the house with no source of income. At the time of death of deceased employee, petitioner was aged about 11 years and 10 months and somehow he pursued his studies and obtained the Degree of B.A. In the year 2015 and got registered his name in the District Employment Exchange.

2. Petitioner's mother applied for compassionate appointment on 11.8.2005 under the policy dated 15.12.2000. The respondents rejected her application as there was no provision in the policy for giving compassionate appointment to the legal representative of the deceased Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and also that she was not educationally qualified for the post of teacher. Thereafter, vide Notification dated 2.12.2005 the policy was amended, to the effect that one of the dependet of the deceased Shiksha karmi has also been held entitled for compassionate appointment. Petitioner's mother again submitted an application for compassionate appointment but vide communication dated 23.8.2006 her application was rejected as she was not having educational qualification for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak and the matter was closed.

3. The Government of M.P. came up with the unified policy for compassionate appointment on 18.8.2008 by merging all the earlier policies. The petitioner became major and submitted an application for compassionate appointment but vide order dated 3.5.2014 his application has also been rejected by the respondents stating that his

- : 3 :-

W.P. No.5579/2021

father expired in the year 2005 and hence under the new policy, compassionate appointment cannot be given. However, the petitioner again tried to get compassionate appointment by submitting an application again in the year 2018 but the same also came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 11.10.2018 under Clause 7.1 of the policy dated 18.8./2008 that now seven years have expired . Hence, the present petition before this Court.

4. After notice, the respondents have filed the reply by submitting that the mother of the petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment as she was not possessing the requisite educational qualification. Now, the petitioner's claim has rightly been rejected under Clause 7.1 of the policy dated 18.8.2008 as more than 7 years' period had already been passed from the date of death of his father, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the material available on record.

5. Late Mandiya Mandloi died on 25.6.2005 in harness leaving behind his wife and two minor children. The widow of the deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment for any post not especially in the teaching cadre, but respondents considered her claim for teaching post despite knowing that she was not qualified for the said post. She could have been appointed on any Class IV post so that she could have taken care of herself and her two minor children. The Act of the respondents is liable to be deprecated as they considered her claim only for the post of Teacher for which, admittedly, she was not possessing the requisite educational qualification.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner, whose date of birth is 21.8.1993

- : 4 :-

W.P. No.5579/2021

became major on 21.8.2011 , submitted an application for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 18.8.2008. The respondents have wrongly rejected the application by relying on Clause 7.1 of the said policy. Clause 7.1 is reproduced below :

"7- vo;Ld lnL;ksa ds laca/k esa O;oLFkk % 7-1 ;fn fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa dksbZ ik= o;Ld lnL; ugh gS rks 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q fnukad ls 7 o"kZ rd dh vof/k esa o;Ld gksus ij vuqdaik fu;qfDr nh tk ldsxhA blds i'pkr~ ;fn og o;Ld gksrk gS rks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugh gksxhA"

According to the aforesaid Clause, if there is no eligible adult member in the family of the deceased employee, then within a period of 7 years from the date of death of Government employee on becoming major the eligible person can be appointed on compassionate ground. If any member of the family became major after the aforesaid period, he/she would not be entitled for the said appointment.

7. The father of the petitioner died on 25.6.2005 and within 7 years the petitioner became major on 21.8.2011, therefore, under Clause 7.1 of the policy he is entitled to get compassionate appointment. Thus, the respondents have wrongly interpreted Clause 7.1 of the policy to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. This is the most deserving case in which wife of the deceased Govt. employee ought to have been given appointment on compassionate basis in the year 2005 itself, but twice her claim was rejected and thereafter twice petitioner's claim have been rejected. The State Government framed the policy to support the dependent/s of the deceased Govt. employee who dies in harness without leaving any source of income for the family. Technicalities should not be prevail to deny the genuine of compassionate appointment, rather the application

- : 5 :-

W.P. No.5579/2021

for compassionate appointment should be considered by showing compassion which is the soul of the policy. But in the present case, every time, on one or the other technical ground the claim has been rejected.

The Apex court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1327 has held as under:-

"7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased."

Again in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684 the Apex court has observed as under:-

"15. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules as per his original application made in July, 2010 and if he is otherwise found eligible to appoint him on the post of Junior Clerk. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today. However, it is observed that the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of his appointment only. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

16. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to

- : 6 :-

W.P. No.5579/2021

observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications.

17. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case.

18. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved."

- : 7 :-

W.P. No.5579/2021

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed, and it stands disposed of. The respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Let the whole exercise be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2023.09.23 16:29:10 +05'30'