Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Neha Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 17 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5496 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. NEHA SINGH W/O AJAY SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O VILLAGE
KANDAYALA POST AND TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN
POLICE STATION RAMPUR BAGHELAN DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.S. THAKUR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT GAD
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
P R A D E S H PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AMIT SETH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1 AND SHRI AKASH CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2 AND 3)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.07.2021 (Annexure
P/7) passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam (M.P.)
whereby the claim of the petitioner with regard compassionate appointment has
been rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a younger sister of deceased
Vipendra Singh, who was working as Peon at District and Sessions Judge,
Ratlam and had met with an accident on 31.07.2020 from his motorcycle and
died during the treatment on 08.08.2020 in M.Y. Hospital, Indore. Her mother
made an application before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam
for compassionate appointment to the petitioner on 20.10.2020. Vide memo
dated 27.11.2020 the respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to submit the
affidavits regarding consent of the other family members and also the marital
status of the petitioner. The petitioner along with her mother and younger
brother personally appeared before the respondent No.3 and submitted their
affidavits. On 05.03.2021, the petitioner along with her family members were
directed to appear before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam for their
statements. Their statements were recorded on 23.02.2021. On 28.06.2021, the
petitioner was directed to send other relevant documents. The application of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on 29.07.2021. She
made a representation on 29.07.2021 before the Registrar General, High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the petitioner
applied for the compassionate appointment in place of her late elder brother, at
that time, she was unmarried and later on she got married after two months on
01.12.2020. She made an application for seeking compassionate appointment
on 20.10.2020. The petitioner is having no source of livelihood. She along with
her mother and younger brother was residing with their relatives at Village
Kandayala. She has also taken a loan of Rs.4 Lakhs. As such she is in dire need
of job. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Meenakshi Dubey v. Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra
Vidyut Vitran Company Limited and others (W.A. No.756 of 2019) decided on
02.03.2020 and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. It is submitted that
following the Full Bench decision, an order dated 14.02.2022 has been passed
in W.P. No.15841 of 2021 (Shakila Begum (Siddiqui) & another v. Northern
Coal Fields Ltd. & others) decided on 14.02.2022.
4. It is argued that if the dependent sister is not included under Clause 9.3.3
of NCWA then the same will amount to clear case of gender bias which is
against the spirit of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39 of the Constitution of India. The
rejection of the claim of the petitioner is per se illegal and against the judgment
of the Full Bench of this Court. It is further brought to the notice of this Court
another Circular issued by the Government dated 27.03.2023 which is in form
of clarification to the Circular dated 29.09.2014 wherein it is mentioned that
there cannot be any discrimination between
married/divorcee/widow/deserted/unmarried daughter/sister. The said
clarification has been issued in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Meenakshi Dubey (supra). The same is
applicable to the case of the petitioner also as in view of clarification with
respect to the Circular dated 29.09.2014, it cannot be said that the petitioner is
not falling under the clauses of the circular to claim compassionate
appointment. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents contend that the
claim of the petitioner is misconceived and is not maintainable in view of the
specific clause mentioned in the circular of the compassionate appointment
dated 29.09.2014 issued by the General Administration Department as it does
not cover a sister. Therefore, the authorities have rightly considered the case of
the petitioner and rejected the same. Mere forwarding of an application for grant
of compassionate appointment by the District Court does not create any right in
favour of the petitioner. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. The only question which calls for consideration before this court is that as
to whether the petitioner who is a dependent sister is entitled for grant of
compassionate appointment in view of circular dated 29.09.2014, which was
prevailing at the time when her unmarried sister passed away. It is a specific
case of the petitioner that she was dependent upon her sister and she was
residing with her sister.
8. The judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Meenakshi Dubey
(supra) has laid down a proposition that there cannot be any discrimination
gender-wise as far as compassionate appointment is concerned. In the case of
Meenakshi Dubey (supra) and also in judgment passed by the Division Bench
of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in LPA No.617/2017 : Madhubala Sinha v.
M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. and other, the relevant Clause 9.3.3. of the NCWA
was put to challenge and it was held as under:-
"24. So far as the sister is concerned, we find from a plain reading of
Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA quoted above that the brother of the deceased
workman dying unmarried, if fully dependent upon him, is also
entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
In that view of the matter, there is no reason as lo why, sister, whether
married Or unmarried, should be deprived of such benefit. If a sister
is denied the benefit of compassionate appointment only on the
ground that she is not included as dependent under Clause 9.3.3 of
NCWA, this is a clear case of gender bias and the same cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law, also on the touchstone of Articles 14 and
15 of the Constitution of India. At this Juncture, we are tempted to
quote Section L3 of the General Clauses Act, even though the General
Clauses Act relates to Central Acts and Regulations. We are referring
to this Section as admittedly the respondent Coal India Ltd is also
'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India,
and Section 13 of the General Clauses Act aims at nondiscrimination
only on the basis of gender. In other words, it prohibits gender
discrimination. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act reads as
follows:-
"13. Gender and number.- In all Central Acts and Regulations, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or context;--
(1) words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include
females; and
(2) words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice-versa."A
plain reading of this Section clearly shows that all the words
importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females and
in that view of the matter also, if brother is included in the list of
dependents under Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA, there is no reason as to why
the word 'brother' shall not include sister also.
25. We are of the considered view that the case of the appellants is
fully covered by the decisions relied upon by learned counsels for the
appellants herein before. The non-inclusion of the parents and sister
of the deceased workman dying in harness, in the list of dependents to
be appointed on compassionate ground, cannot be said to be based on
any rational basis, rather this is wholly unfair and absolutely unjust.
It is also not based on any intelligible differentia, and frustrates the
very object the scheme for compassionate appointment. These
immediate blood relations cannot be denied the benefit of
compassionate appointment, if they are otherwise entitled for the
same, simply because of the fact that they may be entitled to the
compensation under the workman compensation benefits admissible
under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as they fall within the
definition of 'dependent' given in Section 2(1)(q) of the said Act."
9. The State Government has issued a Circular dated 27.03.2023 which reads
as under:-
e/;çns'k 'kklu lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx
ea=ky;
Ø- lh] 5&1@2016@1@3 Hkksiky] fnukad 31&06-2016
çfr
'kklu ds leLr foHkkx]
v/;{k] jktLo e.My] e-ç- Xokfy;j]
leLr foHkkxk/;{k] j
leLr laHkkxk;qä]
leLr ftyk dysDVj]
leLr eq[ ; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r]
e/;çns'kA
fo"k;%& dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fuf/k lsok ls osru ikus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokdky esa e`R;q
gksus ij vuqdaik fu;qfä ckcr~A
-------------------
lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= dekad lh 3&12@2013@1&3] fnukad 29 flrEcj]
2014 }kjk 'kkldh; lsod dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gksus ij vuqdaik fu;qfä ds fn'kk&funsZ'k tkjh fd;s
x;s gSaA ifji= dh df.Mdk 11-1 esa ;g çko/kku gS fd dk;ZHkkfjr@vkdfLedrk fuf/k ls osru ikus
okys deZpkfj;ksa ds fnoaxr gksus ij vuqdaik fu;qfä dh ik=rk ugha gksxh ijUrq muds ifjokj ds
vkfJr ukekafdr lnL; dks ,deq'r :i;s 2-00 yk[k ¼:i;s nks yk[k½ dh jkf'k vuqdaik vuqnku
ds uke ls nh tk,xhA mlesa xzsT ;wVh dh jkf'k lfEefyr ugha gksxhA bl jkf'k dk Hkqxrku lacaf/kr
foHkkx ds dk;Ze kfjr@vkdfLedrk ds en ds varxZr osru en ls fd;k tkosxkA
2& jkT; 'kklu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fuf/k ls osru ikus
okys lsok ds e`rd deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJrksa ds fy, vuqdEik fu;qfä dk çko/kku fo|eku O;oLFkk
vuqpkj fd;k tk,A vr% lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 29-09-2014 esa tkjh
fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds ekin.M ds vuq:i gh dk;Ze kfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fuf/k lsok ls osru ikus okys
deZpkfj;ksa ds fnoxar gksus ij muds vkfJr dks blh lsok dh LFkkiuk ds fjä inksa ij vuqdaik
fu;qfä fn;s tkus dh dk;ZokbZ lqfuf'pr dh tk;sA
e/;çns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls
rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj
lgh
¼lh-ch- iM okj½
mi% lfpo
e/; iz'kklu lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx
10. From the perusal of the aforesaid Circular it is seen that it is a clarification
which has been issued in terms of Circular dated 29.09.2014 which is applicable
to the case of the petitioner. Clause 2.7 of the Circular dated 29.09.2014 has
been clarified to the effect that there cannot be any discrimination as far as
married/divorcee/widow/deserted/unmarried daughter/sister is concerned. The
circular is applicable to the case of all such candidates who were finding place
in the circular. The Circular dated 27.03.2023 is not an amendment or a new
circular which has been introduced.
11. This goes to show that Clause 2.7 of the Circular dated 29.09.2014 has
been clarified and the words married/divorcee/widow/deserted/unmarried
daughter and even a sister have been added. Meaning thereby that virtually there
is no change in the circular. Rather, a clarification to the aforesaid effect has
been issued. The same is equally applicable to the case of the petitioner also.
12. The argument of the respondents that the Circular dated 27.03.2023 being
an amendment is applicable from a prospective date appears to be inappropriate
for the reason that in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid circular it is specifically
mentioned as under -
^^3@ funsZ'k fnukad 29 flrEcj] 2014 dh dafMdk 2-7 esa mYysf[kr Li"Vhdj.k ds
i'pkr fuEukuqlkj Li"Vhdj.k vkSj tksM k tkrk gS%& ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd
fookfgr @ rykd'kqnk @ fo/kok @ ifjR;äk @ vfookfgr iq=h vFkok cgu esa dksbZ
Hksn ugha fd;k tkosA^^
13. For grant of compassionate appointment, the factum of dependency and
penury is required to be seen. In the present case the reason for rejection is that
she is not covered by the circular. The factum of dependency and penury was
not considered. It is clarified herein above that vide Circular dated 27.03.2023
the petitioner is covered under the policy. Therefore, the authorities are required
to consider the factum of dependency and penury.
14. Under these circumstances, the order impugned dated 29.07.2021 passed
by the respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment as the same being contrary to the aforesaid
circulars is held to be per se illegal. The same is hereby quashed.
15. The matter is remanded back to the authorities for reconsideration of the
case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment taking into
consideration the Circular dated 27.03.2023 which is a clarification with respect
to circular dated 29.09.2014 as also the Circular dated 31.08.2016. The
respondents are at liberty to ascertain the factum of dependency and penury
while considering her case.
16. The respondent/authorities are directed to complete the exercise within a
period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed off. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
LR
