SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(MP) 615

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Rajendra Kumar Raikwar – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Choudhary Mayank Singh for petitioner; Devott Bhave, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

ORDER

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to order dated 16.5.2017 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father.

2. The undisputed facts in brief are as under:-

(i) The father of the petitioner namely Late Laxman Prasad Raikwar was working on the post of “Helper” against Work Charged and Contingency paid Establishment under the respondent department, who passed away on 20.1.2015.

(ii) The petitioner submitted an application for his compassionate appointment on 20.3.2015, as per policy dated 29.9.2014.

(iii) On 31.8.2016, Clause 11.1 of the policy dated 29.9.2014 was clarified to the extent that the dependent of deceased employee who was working against Work Charged and Contingency paid Establishment would also be entitled for compassionate appointment. The State Government on 21st March, 2017 (Annexure R/4) has further clarified that the provision/decision dated 31.8.2016 providing compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased employee worki

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top