Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Kumar Parsedia [Jatav] vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:763
1 WP-5082-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5082 of 2013
DINESH KUMAR PARSEDIA [JATAV]
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishabh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Saket Udainiya, learned GA for respondents/State.
ORDER
Both the parties are heard finally.
The present petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:-
a) The Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and orders
contained in Annexure P/1 and P/2 may kindly be quashed and
direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
b) That, the cost of the petition may kindly be awarded.
Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner Lt. Bhogiram
was initially appointed under the work charge contingency and after
completion of 15 years of his services, as per the provision under Section 2
(C) of Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department Department, Work
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:763
2 WP-5082-2013
Charged Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service
Rules, 1976 ( in short Rules, 1976), father of the petitioner automatically
became a permanent employee. Late. Bhogiram has been died on
08.10.2012. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an application for grant of
compassionate appointment before the respondents authority and the same
has been dismissed by order dated 11.02.2013 (Annexure P/1) on the ground
that the dependents of the work charged contingency employees are not
entitled for compassionate appointment and in lieu thereof, they are entitled
only for a lumpsum payment. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has
preferred this petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the
prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting in their return that as per
Clause 12 of the Notification dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P/10), employee
who are working and paid as work charged contingency employees and after
death of the aforesaid employees, their dependents will not be entitled for
benefit of compassionate appointment and they are entitled only for a
lumpsum amount of Rs. 1 lac as a compassionatory amount. Petitioner's
father was working as a work charged contingency employee, therefore, he is
not entitled for compassionate appointment and his application has rightly
been rejected. This petition is totally misconceived and the same deserves to
be dismissed.
Both the parties are heard and perused the entire record with due care.
7. This Court in Shahjad Khan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
(W.P.No.2731/2010(s)) considered the effect of Rule 2(c) of the said Rules
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:763
3 WP-5082-2013
and opined that after serving for more than 15 years, petitioner's father is
deemed to be a permanent employee. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as
under:-
"5. Looking to the aforesaid position, which has been
enumerated, respondents No. 3-Chief Engineer, Public Works
Department, Moti Mahal Gwalior is hereby directed that in
permanent employee as envisaged under Rule 2(c) of the aforesaid
Rules of 1979, he be deemed to be a permanent employee and
accordingly, the application of petitioner for appointment on
compassionate basis be considered. Let the decision be taken by
the respondent No. 3 on or before 31st March, 2012. Petitioner is
hereby directed to serve a copy of this order to the respondent No.
3."
This is not disputed that the aforesaid judgement has attained finality
in view of the dismissal of the Writ Appeal No.110/2013. Thus, it is clear
that the point involved in the case is squarely covered by the judgment
passed in case of Shajad Khan (Supra). Since petitioner's father enjoyed the
status of permanent employee on completion of 15 years of services, as per
the Rule 2 of the Rules, 1976, there is no need for him to get any declaration
during his lifetime. So far as the objection of respondents regarding relevant
clauses of notification dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P/10) is concerned, in
my opinion the the said clause ( Clause 12.1) is not the impediment for the
petitioner. That clause may be applicable to such employee who has not
attained the status of the permanent employee. Once the employee became a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:763
4 WP-5082-2013
permanent employee, under the rules, by no stretch of imagination, clause
12.1 can be applicable.
On the basis of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and impugned
order dated 11.02.2013(Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and respondents
are directed to decide the case of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment within 16 days and pass an appropriate order in this regard. The
same be communicated to petitioner .
Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Vishal
