Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyendra Singh Yadav vs Home Department on 8 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 19031 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SATYENDRA SINGH YADAV S/O LATE SHRI HARIRAM
SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, QUARTER NO.
11, POLICE COLONY, S.A.F. ROAD, NEAR KAMPOO,
POLICE STATION GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AVANEESH CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HOME DEPARTMENT THROUGH CHIEF
SECRETARY MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERALOF POLICE POLICE
HEAD QUARTER S SWAMI DAYANAND MARG,
JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE POLICE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S RANI SARAI BHAWAN,
RAVINDRA NATH TAGORE MARG, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S RANI SARAI BHAWAN,
RAVINDRA NATH TAGORE MARG, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJWARDHAN GAWDE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter, Indore, whereby his claim
for compassionate appointment has been cancelled on account of furnishing
wrong information.
02. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, Head
Constable 1445 Shri Hariram Yadav was an employee of Police Department. He
met with an accident on 21.09.2019, sustained injuries and admitted in All India
Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. He remained under treatment and
unfortunately passed away on 25.09.2019. He left two sons, one daughter and
wife Smt. Shanti Devi behind him. All the remaining dependents gave an
affidavit in support of the petitioner. Thereafter, he applied for grant of
compassionate appointment. His application was forwarded by the
Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to Superintendent of Police, Indore, his claim
was considered by the Superintendent of Police, Indore and he was given
compassionate appointment to the post of Head Constable (GD). The petitioner
joined the duty on 08.12.2020 and sent for training to Police Training School,
Tigara, Gwalior.
03. Later on, Superintendent of Police found that the petitioner has
suppressed the information that his elder brother namely Pushpendra Singh
Yadav is a Government servant and as per Clause - 4.1 of the Policy for
Compassionate Appointment, he is not eligible for compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, vide order dated 17.02.2022, appointment of the petitioner has
been cancelled. The petitioner submitted representations (Annexures-P/13 &
P/14) and thereafter, filed the present petition.
04. The respondents filed a reply by submitting that the brother of
petitioner, Pushpendra Singh Yadav is working in Canara Bank and this
information was suppressed by the petitioner as well as by other family
members, therefore, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The
respondents have annexed the letter dated 20.10.2022 sent by the Senior
Manager, Canara Bank, Indore that Canara Bank is Public Sector Unit of
Central Government.
05. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. Clause - 4.1 of the Policy for
Compassionate Appointment is reproduced below:-
"4.1 िदवंगत शासक य सेवक के प रवार का कोई भी सदस्य यिद पूव से शासक य सेवा
अथवा िनगम, मण्डल, प रषद, आयोग आिद म िनयिमत सेवा म िनयो जत हो, (आवेदक
के प रवार का कोई सदस्य िनयिमत सेवा म िनयो जत न होने का शपथ प स्त ुत
करना होगा)"
06. According to the said Policy, if any family members of deceased
Government employee is in Government Department, Nigam, Mandal, Parishad,
Aayog etc., then other member would not be eligible for compassionate
appointment.
07. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employees of
Nationalized Bank are not the Government employee, therefore, this fact was
not liable to be disclosed that one son of the deceased is working in the Bank
which is not a Government service or service in Nigam, Mandal, Parishad,
Aayog etc. Hence, non-disclosure was bonafide and not intentional to get the
compassionate appointment. In support of the contention, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Officers &
Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v/s Chairman & M.D. I.D.P.L. & Others reported in
(2003) 6 SCC 490, in which the Apex Court held that employee of
Government companies are not the Government servants, they have absolutely
no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary.
Therefore, Clause - 4.1 will not come in way of the petitioner to declare him
ineligible for grant of compassionate appointment.
08. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents / State submits
that though serving in the bank cannot be treated as service in Government
Department, but there is an earning member in the family, therefore, on this
ground also, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
09. By way of impugned order, the compassionate appointment has been
cancelled on the ground that brother of the petitioner is in Government service.
As held above, the service in the Bank is not Government service. It is also not
the case of the respondent that the elder son Pushpendar Singh Yadav is
supporting the family after the death of Shri Hariram Yadav. Respondent being
Police Department could have conducted an enquiry in this matter to verify
whether elder son, while working in Bank is supporting the family or living
separately ? Once compassionate appointment has been given, it has wrongly
been cancelled by applying Clause - 4.1 of the Policy solely on the ground that
another member of the family is a Government servant.
10. Once the appointment order has been issued, it cannot be recalled by
the same authority. Even otherwise in the appointment order, there is certain
conditions that appointment shall be cancelled on the basis of adverse report in
respect of character verification, medical report, educational qualification
certificate, caste certificate etc which is not the case of the respondents.
11. Even otherwise after giving appointment, right had been created in
favour of the petitioner and the appointment has been cancelled without giving
any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On this ground also the impugned
order is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 is
quashed. The appointment of the petitioner is hereby restored. The petitioner be
taken back into the service with all consequential benefits without backwages.
12. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Ravi
