Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chunni Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5157
1 WP-40776-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40776 of 2024
CHUNNI LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raja Bhaiya Tiwari - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure
P/4) passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the application filed by the petitioner
seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that there is
no provision for grant of compassionate appointment at the time when the death of
mother of petitioner has taken place.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his mother was in service of the
respondents' department on the post of sweeper since 05.01.1990. Her services
were regularized under the Work Charged & Contingency Paid Establishment on
the post of sweeper in the year 2012, wherein, the name of his mother finds place
at Serial No.12 in the list. She has died in harness during service on 30.01.2014.
After her death, the petitioner has submitted an application for grant of
compassionate appointment on 04.03.2014, but the same was not considered.
Therefore, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition
No.28217 of 2019 which was finally disposed off by order dated 15.10.2020
directing the competent authority to consider and decide the application submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5157
2 WP-40776-2024
by the petitioner for compassionate appointment within two months from the date
of communication of the order. As the order was not complied with, the petitioner
filed a contempt petition being Contempt Petition No.721 of 2021 and during the
pendency of the contempt petition respondent No.4 filed their reply along with the
order dated 23.11.2020 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment was rejected.
3. It is pointed out that the copy of the rejection order was served upon the
petitioner on 10.06.2021. Therefore, the contempt petition was withdrawn and the
rejection order is put to challenge by filing the present petition. The reason for
rejection assigned by the authorities is that there was no provision for grant of
compassionate appointment to a dependent of a deceased employee, who was
working under the Work Charged & Contingency Paid Establishment. Therefore,
his case could not have been considered. The State Government by circular dated
31.08.2016 for the first time has introduced the provision for grant of
compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employees working
under the Work Charged & Contingency Paid Establishment. The said policy will
be applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is argued that the law is settled on the
proposition that the policy prevailing on the date of consideration of the
application has to be taken into consideration. He has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs.
Ashish Awasthy, 2021 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 19. In view of the aforesaid, the
petitioner has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.
4. Per contra , counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
contentions and supported the impugned order. It is argued that the death of
mother of the petitioner has taken place on 30.01.2014. At the relevant time, the
policy dated 29.09.2014 was invoked wherein, there was no provision for grant of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5157
3 WP-40776-2024
compassionate appointment to the employees of the Work Charged &
Contingency Paid Establishment. For the first time, the State Government has
taken a decision and issued a circular dated 31.08.2016 to consider the case of
dependents of employees of the Work Charged & Contingency Paid
Establishment for grant of compassionate appointment. The same was considered
by the authorities and the impugned order has been passed on 23.11.2020. If the
petitioner can survive for such a long time, then it is clear that he is not in need of
appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that the case law which has
been relied upon by the petitioner is of no help to him. As the judgment passed by
a three Member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Santosh
vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others
vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 were not taken note of. The authorities have
rightly considered and denied the benefit to the petitioner, therefore, no relief
could have been extended to the petitioner.
5. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, there was no provision or the scheme at the relevant time when
the death of the petitioner's mother has taken place. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) has considered the judgment passed in the case of
Indian Bank and others vs. Promila and another, (2020) 2 SCC 729. Recently, this
Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Jangela vs. State of M.P. and another, 2023
(4) M.P.L.J. 105 has considered the judgments with respect to grant of
compassionate appointment and has held as under:-
"9. Thus, it is clear that the policy for appointment on
compassionate ground which was in force on the date of death of
the employee would be relevant. The petitioner has not filed copy of
the policy which was in force on the date of death of his father. On
the contrary, the petitioner is trying to rely upon the policy which
came into force w.e.f.29.09.2014 to claim that the aspirant can
move an application for appointment on compassionate ground
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5157
4 WP-40776-2024
within a period of one year from the date of attaining majority.
Thus, it is clear that the policy on which the petitioner is placing
reliance is not applicable."
7. The Coordinate Bench has considered the aspect that the reference to the
Larger Bench is pending consideration as is reflected from paragraph 16 of the
judgment passed in the case of Santosh Kumar (supra). Under these
circumstances, it has rightly been observed by the authorities that there was no
provision for compassionate appointment in the policy applicable to the case of
the petitioner, therefore, no relief can be extended to him. Even otherwise, the
death has taken place in the family in the year 2014. The petitioner has survived
for more than a decade. The very basis of claim of compassionate appointment
gets frustrated once the candidate has survived for such a long time. It is a trite law
that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is
only a compassion which is shown by the authorities or the department owing to
sudden demise of the sole bread earner of the family to overcome the sudden
hardship which has been faced by the dependents of the deceased employee.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd.(S)
vs. Gauri Devi (S), 2022 (3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 27 has considered the aspect that the
very object of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate
amelioration to the dependent of the deceased employee to overcome the sudden
hardship which family faced due to sudden demise of the sole bread earner of the
family. It is an exception to the general rule and cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the bread earner, the family
survived for a substantial period of time, there is no necessity to say goodbye to
the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of
several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If
the aforesaid principle is applied to the case in hand it is clear that the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5157
5 WP-40776-2024
has survived for more than a decade after the death in his family. On this ground
also, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
9. The fact remains that it is settled proposition of law that the compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It cannot be an alternative
mode seeking recruitment in service. The basic object of grant of compassionate
appointment is to overcome the sudden hardships which is faced by the
dependents of the deceased employee due to sudden demise of the sole bread
earner of the family. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the
petitioner.
10. The writ petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
THK
