Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT INDORE BENCH
S.C. Sharma, J.
Vivekkumar Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. and others - Respondent
W. P. No. 3239 of 2013
Decided On : 06-03-2014
Compassionate Appointment - Family Member - The court held that the daughter-in-law does not form part of the family of the deceased Government servant, and therefore, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was unjustly rejected. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh, ignoring the fact that his wife is serving as an Assistant Teacher.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of his father, a Government servant. His claim was rejected based on the grounds that his wife was serving as an Assistant Teacher.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the daughter-in-law does not form part of the family of the deceased Government servant, and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's claim was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner's case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the daughter-in-law could be considered a member of the family of the deceased Government servant for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the eligibility clause and the policy issued by the State Government to conclude that the daughter-in-law does not form part of the family of the deceased Government servant.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh, ignoring the fact that his wife is serving as an Assistant Teacher.
Mr. Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Parwal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents State.
2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition claiming compassionate appointment.
3. Petitioner's contention is that his father was a Government servant and while in service he expired on 17-3-2012. It has been further stated that the petitioner immediately after the death of his father submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment and the same has been turned down by an order dated 27-2-2013 stating that the petitioner's wife is serving as an Assistant Teacher.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioner's wife can never be treated as a member of a family of the deceased Government servant in light of the definition of the 'Family' as defined under the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 read with the policy framed by the State Government dated 18-8-2008. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the eligibility clause i.e. Clause 2.1 and the same reflects that wife and children are entitled for grant of compassionate appointment and as already stated earlier do not include daughter-in-law as the member of the family.
5. This Court has carefully gone through the impugned order and after going through the policy issued by the State Government, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the daughter-in-law does not form the part of the family of the deceased Government servant, though she is a family member of the petitioner, the respondents were un-justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 27-2-2013, The eligibility clause as provided under the policy dated 18-8-2008 reads as under : --
6. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 27-2-2013 is hereby set aside; The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh ignoring the fact that his wife is serving on the post of Assistant Teacher. The exercise of considering the case of the petitioner afresh be concluded within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid, the petition, stands allowed.
No order as to costs.
C. c. as per rules.
Petition allowed.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
