Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Santosh Kumar Jangela v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 9299 of 2023 (Jabalpur); Decided on 13.6.2023
(1) Civil Services -- compassionate appointment -- policy in force on date of death of employee would be relevant. (2020) 2 SCC 729, 2021 SCC Online SC 1264 and Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2021 decided on 18.11.2021 followed. [Para 9]
(2) Civil Services -- compassionate appointment -- delay in claim -- would necessarily militate against claim for appointment on compassionate ground. Civil Appeal No. 6910 of 2021decided on 18.11.2021 and (2006) 5 SCC 766 followed. [Para 11]
(3) Cause of Action -- repeated representations will not give rise to fresh cause of action. [Para 13]
(4) Civil Services -- compassionate appointment -- petitioner’s mother was alive on date of death of his father -- sisters of petitioner were eligible on date of death of their father -- they did not apply -- it is clear that family of petitioner was not in need of appointment on compassionate ground -- petitioner was sleeping over his right for last 13 years after direction was given by this Court -- did not approach Court for redressal of his grievance – no case made out for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. (2006) 11 SCC 464, (1997) 6 SCC 538, (2007) 9 SCC 278, (2013) 12 SCC 179, (2008) 10 SCC 115, (2010) 2 SCC 59 and (2007) 10 SCC 137 followed. [Paras 22 & 23]
¼1½ flfoy lsok & vuqdaik fu;qfDr & deZpkjh dh e`R;q d¢ fnukad d¨ ço`Ùk uhfr lqlaxr g¨xhA ¼2020½ ,l lh lh 729] 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 1264 rFkk flfoy vihy Øekad 6903 lu~ 2021 fu.kÊr fnukad 18-11-2021 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 9½
¼2½ flfoy lsok & vuqdaik fu;qfDr & nkos esa foyac & vko';dr% vuqdaik d¢ vkèkkj ij fu;qfDr d¢ nkos d¢ fo#) tk,xkA flfoy vihy Øekad 6910 lu~ 2021 fu.kÊr fnukad 18-11-2021 rFkk ¼2006½ 5 ,l lhlh 766 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11½
¼3½ okn gsrqd & ckj&ckj vH;kosnu djus ls u;k okn gsrqd mn~Òwr ugha g¨xkA ¼iSjk 13½
¼4½ flfoy lsok & vuqdaik fu;qfDr & ;kph d¢ firk dh e`R;q d¢ fnukad d¨ mldh ekrk thfor Fkh & ;kph dh cgusa vius firk dh e`R;q d¢ fnukad d¨ ik= Fkh & mUg¨aus vkosnu ugha fd;k & Li"V gS fd ;kph d¢ ifjokj d¨ vuqdaik d¢ vkèkkj ij fu;qfDr dh vko';drk ugha Fkh & bl U;k;ky; }kjk funs'k fn, tkus d¢ mijkar ;kph foxr 13 o"k¨Z ls vius vfèkdkj d¢ ckjs esa ltx ugha Fkk & viuh f'kdk;r d¢ çfrr¨"k.k d¢ fy, U;k;ky; esa ugha vk;k & vuqdaik d¢ vkèkkj ij fu;qfDr çnku fd, tkus dk ekeyk fl) ughaA ¼2006½ 11 ,l lh lh 464] ¼1997½ 6 ,l lh lh 538] ¼2007½ 9 ,l lhlh 278] ¼2013½ 12 ,l lh lh 179] ¼2008½ 10 ,l lh lh 115] ¼2010½ 2 ,l lh lh 59 rFkk ¼2007½ 10 ,l lh lh 137 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ,oa 23½
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 21.2.2023 passed by District Education Officer, Mandla in File No./Vidhi/2013/478 by which the prayer for grant of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short are that the father of the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher. He died in harness on 16.12.1999 leaving behind his family members, who were dependent on the income of late Kanhaiyalal. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of death of his father he was minor and was not eligible to apply for appointment on compassionate ground. As soon as he attained majority, he applied for appointment on compassionate ground by making an application on 15.10.2007. Late Kanhaiyalal was survived by his wife, two daughters and the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner also died on 12.05.2000 and the sisters of the petitioner got married thereafter.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that when the respondents did not take any action on the application filed by the petitioner, then he approached this Court by filing W.P. No.209/2008(s) for early disposal of his application. Accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 18.3.2010 and the respondents were directed to expeditiously consider the application. It is submitted that although the impugned order is shown to have been passed on 21.2.2013 but the same was not communicated and accordingly, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No.842/2023 which was withdrawn by order dated 12.4.2023 with liberty to file fresh writ petition. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground was moved after 7 years of death of his father. It is submitted that the said reason is contrary to Clause 3.2 of policy dated 29.9.2014.
4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner died on 16.12.1999. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 13.4.1989, therefore, it is clear that he attained majority in the year 2007. It appears that on 15.10.2007 he filed an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground which was decided by order dated 21.2.2013. The present petition has been filed after 10 years of the said impugned order. If the petitioner can survive for such a long time, then it is clear that he is not in need of appointment on compassionate ground. Furthermore, there is nothing on record as to why the mother or the sisters of the petitioner did not apply for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank v. Promila, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 has held as under:
18. The question of applicability of any subsequent Scheme really does not apply in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank. Thus, it would not be appropriate to examine the case of the respondents in the context of subsequent Schemes, but only in the context of the Scheme of 4.4.1979, the terms of which continued to be applicable even as per the new Scheme of 5-11-1985 i.e. the Scheme applicable to the respondents. There is no provision in this Scheme for any ex gratia payment. The option of compassionate appointment was available only if the full amount of gratuity was not taken, something which was done. Thus, having taken the full amount of gratuity, the option of compassionate appointment really was not available to the respondents.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to Govt. Deptt. Of Education (Primary) v. Bheemesh reported in 2021 SCC Online 1264 has held as under:
12. But we do not consider it necessary to do so. It is no
Compassionate appointment is not an automatic right and is subject to scrutiny based on various parameters, including the financial position of the family and the economic dependence on the deceased ....
The need for immediacy in providing compassionate appointment and disentitling relief due to undue delay.
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
