Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokendra Luhan vs Department Of Education on 6 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 681 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
LOKENDRA LUHAN S/O CHATARSINGH LUHAN, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED 40/5,
NARMADA PURA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK TUGNAWAT - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
1. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICE CHANCELLOR VIKRAM UNIVERSITY UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASST. KULSACHIV VIKRAM UNIVERSITY UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 3)
(BY SHRI ASHUTOSH NIMGAONKAR - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2. This writ appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellant has
challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 16.03.2022
passed in Writ Petition No. 2550 of 2013, whereby the claim of the appellant
seeking compassionate appointment in view of death of his father, who died on
12.09.2009 in harness.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single
Judge dismissed the claim of the appellant relying on the judgment passed by
the Division Bench in the case of Prajesh Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and
others (WA No. 373/2015) decided on 10.05.2016 reported in LAWS (MPH)
2016 5 101, wherein Clause 4.1 of the policy has been considered by the
learned Single Judge and the Writ Petition has been dismissed on the ground
that the policy does not provide any relaxation or consideration on the ground
that such government employee in case living separately and, therefore, the
contention of the appellant that his brother, who is in government service is
living separately is of no help.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the judgment
passed by the Division Bench in the case of Ms Karuna Bhatt Vs. State of M.P.
and another (WA No. 866/2018) decided on 28.02.2019, wherein the Division
Bench has disagreed with the interpretation given to Clause 4.1 of the policy for
compassionate appointment and held that a fair inquiry should be conducted
keeping in view the earlier judgments passed by this Court. The Division Bench
remanded back the matter to the Collector to pass a fresh order after
conducting a detailed inquiry in respect of brother of the appellant, who is a
Government servant serving as a Driver in Special Armed Forces (S.A.F). It
further directed that the Inquiry Officer shall give a categoric finding that
whether the brother is living separately or not or whether he is supporting his
family or not and whether he was dependent upon the deceased government
servant or not and thereafter reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass an
appropriate order, in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the position and
submitted that in Ms Karuna Bhatt (supra), the Court has given such direction
therefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge be modified to that
extent.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant has
categorically stated that his brother is living separately and is not supporting the
family of the appellant therefore it is directed that the respondents No. 2 and 3
shall conduct a fair inquiry in the light of Ms Karuna Bhatt (supra) and give a
categoric finding as to whether the brother is living separately or not or whether
he is supporting his family or not and whether he was dependent upon the
deceased Government servant or not. After such an inquiry report is available,
the respondents No. 2 and 3 shall reconsider the claim of the appellant for
compassionate appointment and pass appropriate order, in accordance with
law. The entire exercise be concluded within a period of four months', from the
date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
8. With the aforesaid modification, the order passed by the learned Single
Judge dated 16.03.2022 in Writ Petition No. 2550 of 2013 is disposed off.
9. This order shall be read conjointly with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 16.03.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 2550 of
2013.
Accordingly, this writ appeal stands disposed off.
No order as to costs.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
rashmi
