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

2022 Supreme(MP) 304

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Karan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Ajay Jain for petitioner; Smt. Vinita Phaye, Government Advocate, for respondents.

ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.8.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground that when the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment in the year 2015 there was no provision for compassionate appointment in the respondent establishment and the policy for compassionate appointment came in the establishment of the respondent No.2 and 3 with effect from 1.10.2019.

2. Facts of the case in nut shell is that the petitioner's father late Shri Mansingh died in harness on 15.5.2015 while working as driver in the respondent No.3 establishment. After the death of his father petitioner applied to the respondent No.3 for appointment on compassionate appointment in place of his father. The respondent No.3 informed Addl. Collector, Ujjain that as no post of driver in backward class is vacant and, therefore, the petitioner was directed to wait for seven years. It was informed vide letter dated 30.9.2015 asking the respondent No.2 to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Peon/Clerk. Thereafter nothing has

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