Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Bhawna Chourasia v. State of M. P. & others
Writ Petition No. 4987 of 2015 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 5.4.2019
(2) Compassionate Appointment -- policy dated 29.9.2014 -- Cls. 2.4 and 12.2 -- as per Cl. 2.4 of policy, married daughter is also entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment -- vide Cl. 12.2, condition added that previously disposed of/rejected cases shall not be considered - claim of petitioner was directed to be considered again by settlement arrived at in Lok Adalat -- claim reconsidered and rejected in the light of Cl. 12.2 -- Cl. 12.2 cannot be pressed into service qua petitioner, otherwise it will amount to dividing a homogeneous class -- will create a class within the class -- respondents directed to consider the claim of petitioner.
Held : If said clause is pressed into service in the present case, it will have a discriminatory result. It will deprive the petitioner from the fruits of consideration on the ground that her claim was previously rejected. At the cost of repetition, her claim could not have been rejected even as per the earlier policy for want of enabling provision. Clause 12.2 cannot be pressed into service qua petitioner otherwise it will amount to dividing a homogeneous class and create a class within the class. The respondents are unable to show any rational object and purpose sought to be achieved by pressing this clause against the petitioner. Whether clause 12.2 can be pressed into service in those cases where: (i) validity of clause 12.2 is not called in question & (ii) claim for compassionate appointment is rejected before introduction of policy of 2014 and such rejection order had attained finality, is a different facet which is not required to be decided in the present case. (1955)1 SCR 1045 followed. ILR 1992 Kar. 3416, 2015-3-LW 756 and 2013 SCC Online Bom. 1549 relied on. 2010 (3) JLJ 300 (FB) distinguished.
[Paras 16 to 18
¼1½ vuqdaik fu;qfDr && lu~ 2008 dh uhfr ykxw gks rc Hkh] ;kph dks fookfgr iq=h gksus ds dkj.k vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq fopkj fd, tkus ds vf/kdkj ls oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && e`r deZpkjh dk ifr@iRuh thfor && fookfgrk iq=h ,sls thfor ekrk@firk dh ns[kHkky djus dk opu nsrh gS && mls vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq fopkj fd, tkus ds vf/kdkj ls oafpr fd;k x;k rks ;g U;k; dk migkl gksxkA ¼1955½1 ,l lh vkj 1045 vuqlfjrA vkb ,y vkj 1992 dukZ- 3416] 2015&3 ,y MCY;w 756 rFkk 2013 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu cacbZ 1549 voyafcrA 2010¼3½ ts ,y ts 300 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15
¼2½ vuqdaik fu;qfDr && uhfr fnukad 29-9-2014 && [kaM 2-4 rFkk 12-2 && uhfr ds [kaM 2-4 ds vuqlkj] fookfgr iq=h Hkh vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq fopkj fd, tkus dh gdnkj gS && [kaM 12-2 }kjk 'krZ tksM+h xbZ fd iwoZ esa fuiVk, x,@ ukeatwj fd, x, ekeyksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk,xk && yksd vnkyr esa gq, le>kSrs }kjk ;kph ds nkos ij iqu% fopkj fd, tkus dk funs'k fn;k x;k Fkk && nkos ij iqufoZpkj fd;k x;k rFkk [kaM 12-2 ds izdk'k esa ukeatwj dj fn;k x;k && ;kph ds laca/k esa [kaM 12-2 iz;qDr ugha fd;k tk ldrk] vU;Fkk ;g le:i oxZ foHkkftr djus dh dksfV esa vk,xk && blls ,d oxZ ds Hkhrj ,d vU; oxZ l`ftr gksxk && izR;FkhZx.k dks ;kph ds nkos ij fopkj djus dk funs'k fn;k x;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr% ;fn mä [akM bl ekeys esa iz;qDr fd;k tkrk gS rks mldk foHksndkjh ifj.kke gksxkA mlls ;kph bl vk/kkj ij fopkj ds Qfyr oafpr gks tk,xh fd mldk nkok iwoZ esa ukeatwj dj fn;k x;k FkkA iqujko`fÙk dh dher ij] iwoZrj uhfr ds vuqlkj Hkh lkeF;Zdkjh mica/k ds vHkko ds dkj.k mldk nkok ukeatwj ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA ;kph ds laca/k esa [kaM 12-2 iz;qDr ugha fd;k tk ldrk] vU;Fkk ;g le:i oxZ foHkkftr djus dh dksfV esa vk,xk rFkk ,d oxZ ds Hkhrj ,d vU; oxZ l`ftr gksxkA izR;FkhZx.k ;kph ds fo#) bl [kaM dks iz;qDr dj lk/kk tkus okyk dksbZ Hkh ;qfDrlaxr mís'; vkSj iz;kstu n'kkZus esa vleFkZ gSaA D;k [kaM 12-2 mu ekeyksa esa iz;qDr fd;k tk ldrk gS tgk¡ % ¼1½ [kaM 12-2 dh fof/kekU;rk iz'uxr ugha dh xbZ gS ,oa ¼2½ vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds fy, nkok lu~ 2014 dh uhfr ds iqu%LFkkiu ds iwoZ ukeatwj fd;k x;k gS rFkk og ukeatwjh vkns'k vafre gks x;k gS] ;g ,d fHkUu igyw gS ftldk fofu'p;u bl ekeys esa fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gSA ¼1955½1 ,l lh vkj 1045 vuqlfjrA vkb ,y vkj 1992 dukZ- 3416] 2015&3&,y MCY;w 756 rFkk 2013 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu cacbZ 1549 voyafcrA 2010¼3½ ts ,y ts 300 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ izHksfnrA
1. This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court for the same grievance. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that petitioner’s mother Janki Chourasia, an Assistant Teacher died in harness on 26.1.2013. The petitioner, the only daughter, preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected on 23.1.2014 Annexure P-4. Aggrieved, petitioner filed W.P. No.13325/2014 which was disposed of as per settlement arrived at in Lok Adalat on 13.4.2014. As per the settlement, the respondents were required to take a fresh decision on the claim of compassionate appointment as per the applicable policy. In turn, by order dated 23.1.2014, the outcome was communicated. Although a new policy dated 29.9.2014 is now invogue which contains a clause which enables the employer to consider the claim of married daughter, the said claim qua petitioner cannot be considered in the teeth of clause 12.2 of this policy dated 29.9.2014.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although clause 12.2 of this policy provides that previously preferred and rejected/disposed of claims shall not be considered, such impediment is bad in law and hits Article 14, 15, 16, 39(a), 42, 51(1)(k), 243D(3) and 243T(3) of the Constitution of India. He submits that different High Courts have disapproved the action of respective state governments in depriving the married daughter from the fruits of compassionate appointment. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Karnataka High Court reported in ILR 1992 KAR 3416 (R. Jayamma v. Karnataka Electricity Board), Madras High Court reported in 2015-3-L.W. 756 (R. Govindammal v. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department) and Bombay High Court reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1549 (Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni v. The Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle and another). He submits that clause 12.2 is bad in law and it deprives the petitioner despite her eligibility other wise.
3. Prayer is opposed by Shri Sheetal Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Tiwari submits that as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the policy at the time of consideration is relevant policy which will govern the field. As per the policy of 2008, since there existed no enabling provision, petitioner’s claim was rejected on 23.1.2014. In the light of clause 12.2 of New Policy dated 29.9.2014, petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim compassionate appointment.
4. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The different High Courts have considered this aspect in great detail. It is apposite to quote the relevant passages which read as under:
7. In R. Jayamma (supra), it is held as under :
9. Though women have equal rights in law, tradition and social customs hinder Indian women in enjoying equal rights with men. With the change in family structure and life styles and the social norms, nothing is so detrimental to society as a blind adherence to outworn forms and obsolete social customs which survive because of inertia.
10. This discrimination, in refusing compassionate appointment on the only ground that the woman is married is violative of Constitutional Guarantees. It is out of keeping with the trend of times when men and women compete on equal terms in all areas. The Electricity Board would do well to revise its guidelines and remove such anachronisms.” [Emphasis Supplied]
8. In R. Govindammal (supra), it is opined as under :
“14. Therefore, I am of the view that G.O.Ms. No. 560 dated 3.8.1977 depriving compassionate appointment to married daughters, while married sons are provided compassionate appointment, is unconstitutional. In fact, the State can make law providing certain benefits exclusively for women and children as per Article 15(3) of the Constitution. But the State cannot discriminate women in the matter of compassionate app
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
