Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Bagana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5461 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP BAGANA S/O LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR
BAGANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O: 169,
GANGANIKETAN, NEAR BIMA HOSPITAL, UJJAIN ROAD
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. ANJALI JAMKHEDKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PHQ,
JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMETN ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for quashment of order dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure
P/1) and 28.12.2020 (Annexure P/2) whereby his claim for appointment on
compassionate basis has been rejected primarily on the ground that his sister is
already in Government employment and is serving on the post of a Constable.
02. From a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate basis, it is evident that she had disclosed the
said fact therein and had categorically stated that his sister is in Police services
and she has given no objection for his appointment on compassionate basis. It
has also been stated therein that she has already been engaged to be married.
However, from a perusal of the impugned orders, it does not appear that the
said facts have been taken into consideration by the respondents.
03. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.
No.1620/2018 (Ritesh Mule Vs. State of M.P. and Others) has held as under:-
"2. The facts of the case reveals that the appellant before this Court has preferred a
writ petition challenging order dated 21.04.2017 (Annexure P/9) by which, his
claim for grant of compassionate appointment was turned down. It was stated in
the writ petition that the petitioner's mother Late Smt. Kumodni Mule was working
as a Lady Health Visitor and unfortunately expired on 03.05.2015. The appellant
applied for grant of compassionate appointment. However, his application was
rejected. The sole ground for rejection of the application is that the brother of the
appellant namely Deepak Mule is a government servant and posted as Samvida
Shala Shikshak at Navin Prathamik Vidhyalaya Nadipura Sanmod Sankul Kendra.
3. Learned single judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that a family
member was already a government servant posted as Samvida Shala Shikshak and
in those circumstances, no relief has been granted to the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has straight away drawn attention of this court
towards the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ms.
Karuna Bhatt Vs. State of MP and Another passed in WA No.866/2018 dated
28.02.2019, wherein in similar circumstances, this Court has quashed the order
rejecting the claim for grant of compassionate appointment and the respondents
therein have been directed to conduct a detailed enquiry, keeping in view the
judgment delivered in the case of State of MP Vs. Mehmood Hussain Mansure
delivered in writ appeal no.729/2013 dated 25.06.2014. The order passed in writ
appeal no.729/2013 reads thus:-
"Heard counsel for the parties.
This appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge
dated 3rd October, 2012, in Writ Petition No.209/2009, whereby writ
petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the order passed by the
District Education Officer dated 22.1.2008 has been set aside. The
learned Single Judge has noted that the sole reason recorded in rejecting
the application for grant of compassionate appointment was that the
brother of the respondent was working as "Shiksha Karmi". The learned
Single Judge has adverted to the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court which has held that "Shiksha Karmi" is not a Government servant.
Even if we were to agree with the submission of the appellants that
working as 'Shiksha Karmi' in local body would be covered by the
expression contained in the policy, namely, Shashkiya Seva or
Corporation, Council, Commission etc. to include local bodies and where
person is employed as "Shiksha Karmi", the fact as to whether the
brother of the respondent was residing with the family or otherwise would
still be a matter to be examined by the District Education Officer.
Inasmuch as, if it is found as of fact that the brother of respondent was
staying separately and not with the family of the respondent and other
dependents of the deceased-employee and that they have no financial
support from any other source, in that eventuality, the application of the
respondent for grant of compassionate appointment would still be
maintainable and ought to be considered on its own merits.
In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted with the operative
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Disposed of accordingly."
5. In light of the aforesaid, once there was an averment made by the appellant, that
is brother is living separately, though he is working as Samvida Shala Shikshak, a
proper inquiry should have been done by the Collector, keeping in view the
judgment of Mehmood Hussain Mansuri (Supra)."
04. Since the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment has been rejected solely by considering the fact of his sister being
in Government service without conducting any enquiry as is mandatory in view
of the aforesaid judgment, the impugned orders dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure
P/1) and 28.12.2020 (Annexure P/2) are hereby set aside. The Superintendent of
Police, Dewas, respondent No.4 is directed to conduct enquiry and to give
categorical finding i.e. whether the sister of the petitioner is living separately or
not, whether she is supporting the family or not and whether she was dependent
on the Government servant or not etc. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police,
respondent No.4 shall be free to pass an appropriate order in accordance with
law.
05. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within four months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
06. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
