Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Dahiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4651
1 WP-1829-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 24th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1829 of 2025
PRADEEP DAHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the
impugned order dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) and 07.06.2022
(Annexure P/2) and directed to respondent No.3 to appoint present
petitioner on any Class-3 post in regular establishment, in the interest
of justice.
(ii) To grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the
circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be
also awarded."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father was working in
the respondent/department as a contingency paid employee and subsequently
his services were regularized. He died in harness while he was in service.
The post retiral claims have already been settled in favour of the wife and
she is receiving pension. Petitioner being the son of late Shri Tirath Prasad
Dahiya who was a regular employee in respondent/department, applied for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4651
2 WP-1829-2025
the compassionate appointment.
3. His application was rejected by the authorities on the ground that there
is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependant of
the Work Charged Contingency Paid Employee. As the death has taken place
on 24.06.2009 and the amendment is incorporated in the compassionate
appointment subsequently. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any
relief. Accordingly, his representation is rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Viva
Highways Ltd. V. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd . :
Arbitration Appeal No.14/2017 decided on 05.05.2017 wherein the Full
Bench placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Koteshwar Vitthal Kamad vs. K.Rangappa Baliga AIR 1969 SC
504, Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 5100 and State of
Rajasthan vs. Mangilal Pindwal AIR 1996 SC 2181 has held that "when an
amendment is made by substitution of a provision, it has the effect of
replacing the old provision by the substituted provision and in absence of
repugnancy, inconsistency and absurdity, it must be construed as if it is
incorporated in the Act right from ab initio."
5. There is an amendment carried out by the authorities making provision
for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependants of the
Contingency Paid Employee. As the factum of amendment could not be
disputed by the authorities, he prays for a direction to the authorities to
reconsider his case for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4651
3 WP-1829-2025
judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Viva
Highways (supra). He has further brought to the notice of this Court another
judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Nadeem Khan v. The State of M.P. and others: W.P. No.4130/2017 decided
on 06.09.2017 wherein on similar issued the Court has granted relief to the
petitioner.
6. Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the
contentions pointing out the fact that the case has already been considered
and rejected on merits on earlier occasion. But, he could not dispute the fact
that there is an amendment incorporated by way of substitution and the
dependants of the employees of Work Charged Contingency Paid Employees
are also held to be entitled for grant of compassionate appointment.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is the son of Work Charged Contingency
Paid Employee. Under these circumstances, his case ought to have been
considered by the authorities for grant of compassionate appointment in
view of the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Viva Highways (supra).
8. Looking to the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner this petition is
disposed off directing the authorities to reconsider for grant of
compassionate appointment taking into consideration the amendment
incorporated in the compassionate appointment policy by way of substituting
the provisions. As the authorities have already rejected the claim of the
petitioner, the impugned orders dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) and
07.06.2022 (Annexure P/2) are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4651
4 WP-1829-2025
authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner. The exercise be completed
within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
9. Petition stands disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
