Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
R.V. Raveendran, C.J. and Shantanu Kemkar, J.
Pushpendra Singh Baghel
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 4542 of 2004
Decided On: 24.02.2005
Compassionate Appointment - Service Matter - M.P. Sales Tax Class I and II Service Recruitment Rules, 1966 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the appointment of the third respondent as a Commercial Tax Officer on compassionate grounds, challenging its validity under the M.P. Sales Tax Class I and II Service Recruitment Rules, 1966. The court highlighted the principles of compassionate appointments and their limitations, emphasizing that compassionate appointments cannot be offered to Class II posts. The court also analyzed the provisions of Rule 7(4) of the Rules and its applicability to the appointment. The judgment quashed the appointment and recommended appropriate compensation to the family of the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the third respondent as a Commercial Tax Officer on compassionate grounds, citing it as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought a direction for the completion of the investigation into the death of R. K. Jain. The State Government defended the appointment, stating that it was made as a special case due to the circumstances of R. K. Jain's death and the recommendation by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the third respondent to a Class II post on compassionate grounds was not valid and sustainable. It emphasized that compassionate appointments cannot be offered to Class II posts and that the appointment violated the principles and rules governing compassionate appointments. The court also rejected the contention that the PIL was impermissible and found that the appointment was not justifiable under Rule 7(4) of the Rules.
Issues: The issues before the court included the validity of the compassionate appointment, the applicability of Rule 7(4) of the M.P. Sales Tax Class I and II Service Recruitment Rules, 1966, the maintainability of the PIL, and the potential discrimination in denying similar appointments to others.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate appointments cannot be offered to Class II posts and that the appointment of the third respondent was not justifiable under Rule 7(4) of the Rules. It also emphasized that the PIL was maintainable and rejected the contention of discrimination based on previous appointments to Class II posts.
Final Decision: The court quashed the appointment of the third respondent as a Commercial Tax Officer (Class II) and recommended appropriate compensation to the family of the deceased. It also allowed the State Government to extend concessions and facilities permissible under the law, including offering an appointment to a Class III post to one member of the family. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs, and the security deposit by the petitioner was to be refunded.
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.
1. Many a time, the Courts are required to take inconvenient decisions, contrary to public opinion and personal sympathies. This is one such case. In this PIL, the appointment of third respondent, as a Commercial Tax Officer, on compassionate grounds, is challenged as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and prejudicial to public interest.
2. Third respondent is the widow of one R. K. Jain. The said R. K. Jain was working as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Bhopal. He had put in about 25 years of service. The department considered him to be an excellent officer. On 14-7-2004, he was arrested by the Police Officers of the Special Police Establishment attached to Lokayukt, Madhya Pradesh, allegedly while accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from one Vinod Chhajad, Tax Practitioner. It would appear that he was detained and tortured in the office of Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal. While in such Police custody, he was rushed to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where he died. Postmortem examination disclosed the cause of his death as Asphyxia. The postmortem report also revealed fracture of ribs and other injuries on his body. It would appear that the State directed the Crime Investigation Department to inquire into circumstances leading to the death of R. K: Jain. According to the State, the investigation prima-facie revealed the involvement of M. S. Nain, the then In-charge Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, in the death of R.K. Jain.
3. His unnatural death on account of injuries sustained in custodial violence caused lot of anger and resentment amongst the public and also sparked an agitation at Bhopal demanding the arrest and prosecution of Shri M. S. Nain, Dy. Superintendent of Police and Shri B. P. Singh, Inspector, officers of the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt who were allegedly responsible for the death of R. K. Jain. It is also stated that a demand was made by some elected representatives of people as also by the colleagues of R. K. Jain in the Commercial Tax Department that appropriate compensation and relief be provided to the widow of late R. K. Jain. One of the suggestions was that the third respondent (wife of deceased R. K. Jain) should be provided a suitable appointment.
4. Late R. K. Jain left him surviving his widow (third respondent), two daughters and a son. Third respondent submitted an application on 23-7-2004 to the State Government (Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department) seeking compassionate appointment on a Class II post. Along with the said application, she filed copies of testimonials to show that she possessed the requisite educational qualification for such post. Having regard to unfortunate circumstances in which her husband died and resultant public agitation, the State Government wanted to consider her case as a special case with compassion and sympathy. Therefore, after consulting the M.P. Public Service Commission (as per letter dated 26-7-2004) and securing its consent (as per reply dated 28-7-2004), the State Government issued an order dated 23-8-2004 appointing third respondent as Commercial Tax Officer (a Class II Post) on compassionate grounds on probation for a period of two years by relaxing the relevant recruitment Rules. It is stated that in pursuance of it, third respondent joined duty and is presently working as Commercial Tax Officer at Bhopal.
5. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer at Jabalpur, has filed this petition on 8-11-2004 by way of Public Interest Litigation for quashing the compassionate appointment order dated 23-8-2004 appointing third respondent as Commercial Tax Officer. He has also sought a direction to Lokayukt to complete investigation in Crime No. 97/2004 against late R. K. Jain and place the relevant material before the Court. The petitioner contends that the State Government has no power to make appointment to a class II Gazetted post, on compassionate grounds. It is
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
