IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT th ON THE 24 OF APRIL, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 10663 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

DEEPMALABHALAVI W/O RAJENDRA TUMRAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CURRENTLLY UNEMPLOYED R/O NAJARPURA, BICHUUA, DISTT.

CHHINDWARA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MS KAUSHIKI MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT REVENUE BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE COLLECTOR CHHINDWARA DISTT.CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. TEHSILDAR CHHINDWARA DISTT.CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRIYANKA MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing of Writ of Certiorari for quashing and set aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2021 contained in Annexure-P/1.

2. By impugned order dated 25.05.2021 Collector, Chhindwara Signature Not Verified considered case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. One Chaitram Bhalavi died in harness on 16.04.2012. On the basis of circular of the State Government dated 29.09.2014, dependent daughter of deceased/employee namely Deepmala Bhalavi was appointed on compassionate ground on 27.07.2019. Complaint was filed before the Collector by Laxmi Bhalavi and Sarita Markam. On said complaint, enquiry committee was appointed. Said committee submitted its report dated 08.01.2021 and held that Deepmala was married daughter. As per clause 2.2 and 2.3 of circular dated 29.09.2014, unmarried, widow or divorcee daughter is entitled for compassionate appointment. Petitioner is married daughter, therefore, she is not entitled. The committee further held that as per clause 4.1, if any family member of the deceased government servant is engaged in regular government service or in Corporation, Board, Parishad etc. then candidate will not be entitled. Brother of petitioner namely Santram @ Swapnil was working as Forest Guard at the time of death of his father and petitioner is married daughter, therefore, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. On the basis of said report, Collector cancalled the appointment of petitioner on post of peon as appointment was contrary circular of to the State Government.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that impugned order dated 25.05.2021 cancelling appointment of petitioner is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that petitioner could not be excluded from family only on the ground that she is married and same will amount to gender discrimination. Married son and married daughter may appear to constitute different class but in claim of compassionate appointment, married son and married daughter are to be treated equally. Collector has passed the order placing blind reliance on policy, which amounts to violation of Signature Not Verified fundamental right of equality of petitioner. In these circumstances, prayer is made for quashing of the impugned order.

4. Govt. Advocate appearing for State opposed the prayer for quashing of impugned order and submitted that order does not violates any fundamental rights of petitioner. Petitioner's brother was in service and he was an earning member. It is further submitted that petitioner cannot be said to be dependent as she is a married daughter. It is submitted that brother of the petitioner namely Santram @ Swapnil was in Govt. service on post of Forest Guard prior to death of deceased/employee. Order has been passed complying with circular dated 29.09.2014 and no illegality has been committed. In these circumstances, no interference is called for and petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties.

6. Compassionate appointment granted to petitioner was cancelled on two grounds :

(i) Petitioner's brother was in service prior to death of petit