Compassionate appointment claims must be based on an existing policy; without a relevant policy for non-regular employees, such applications cannot be granted.

ORDER :

ASHISH SHROTI, J.

These writ petition have been filed challenging the order passed by the respondents thereby rejecting the request of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no policy prevalent for grant of appointment to the dependents of a permanently classified/Sthai Karmi employee.

W.P.No.13841/2023

2. The petitioner in this case is the son of one Madhvendra Sharma, who was initially engaged as daily wager in the Public Health Engineering Department. He was permanently classified as skilled worker on 31.03.2016. He expired on 17.12.2021 and, thereafter, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. The application has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the compassionate appointment can be given only to the dependent of a regular/work-charge employee and the policy is not applicable to the dependents of permanently classified employee.

W.P.No.18817/2023

3. The petitioners in this case are the widow and the son of one Motiram @ Motilal Jatav, who was also permanently classified on the post of Gangman vide order dated 02.03.2005 (Annexure P/2). He expired on 29.01.2023, whereupon the petitioners made an application for grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner no.2 on 11.04.2023 (Annexure P/4). This application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that Clause - 11 of the policy dated 29.09.2014 specifically prohibits grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of an employee working on daily wages.

W.P.No.21584/2022

4. The petitioner in this case is the son of one Saleem Khan, who was initially engaged as Ward Boy. He was conferred with the status of Sthai Karmi w.e.f. 01.09.2016 as an unskilled labour vide order dated 28.10.2017. The status of Sthai Karmi was conferred pursuant to the policy of the State Government dated 07.10.2016. Saleem Khan expired on 01.02.2021, whereupon the petitioner made an application on 04.02.2021 for grant of compassionate appointment. This application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 08.02.2021, again, on the ground that the policy for grant of compassionate appointment is not applicable to the dependents of employee working as Sthai Karmi.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three cases, commonly and strongly, relied upon an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 24.06.2022 in W.P. No.11742/2021. It is their contention that this Court has already held in the aforesaid case that the policy dated 29.09.2014 would be applicable in the case of death of an employee classified as un-skilled/semi-skilled/skilled employee under circular dated 07.10.2016.

6. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.21584/2022 also submitted that in the similar circumstances, the respondent - University has granted compassionate appointment to the son of one Brij Narayan Sharma. The copy of the order of compassionate appointment in this regard is placed on record as Annexure P/5.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the policy for grant of compassionate appointment floated vide circular dated 29.09.2014 is applicable only in cases of a regular/work-charge employees. It is their contention that the deceased employees in all these cases were either permanently classified under The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, or under the circular dated 07.10.2016. Thus, the deceased employ