IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR ON THE 19^th OF NOVEMBER, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 29819 of 2022 OMPRAKASH RATHORE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aviral Vikas Khare- Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Mukesh Parwal- G.A. for the State.

ORDER

1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(1) Appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus or other, the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 be quashed and Respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the Petitioner in terms of the existing policy.

(2) Appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus or other, Respondents be directed to confer additional monitory benefits in service or otherwise towards the delay occasioned by their arbitrary neglect in issuing appointment order and prejudice resulted therein.

(3) Costs of this petition be awarded, (4) Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit, be awarded to the Petitioner.”

3] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2022, passed by the respondent No.2, whereby, the petitioner’s claim for compassionate Signature Not Verified appointment has been rejected on the ground that his brother is posted in Indian Army since 2010.

4] Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.5436/2017 dated 20.08.2018 (Prem Singh Rajawat Vs. State of M.P. and Another), wherein also, in similar circumstances, where the brother of the petitioner was in Indian Army, claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the authorities but the order was reversed by this Court. It is submitted that the aforesaid order has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.157/2019 vide order dated 15.02.2022 and thus, the order has become final. Hence, it is submitted that the petition may be allowed in the light of the aforesaid order.

5] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, however, it is not denied that the writ appeal filed by the State against the order passed in the case of Premsingh Rajawat (Supra) has also been rejected.

6] Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the record, it is found that in the present case the respondents have relied upon para 4.1 of the Transfer Policy dated 29.09.2014, which has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of Premsingh Rajawat (Supra). It is found that in the impugned order, the respondents have dislodged the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment only on the ground that his brother is in Indian Army since 2010 whereas, the petitioner has also averred in the petition that the mother of the petitioner Rajubai W/o Late Balchandraji has filed an affidavit to the effect that she resides with the petitioner only and the petitioner is shouldering all the household Signature Not Verified responsibilities after demise of her husband. She has also stated that her other son is employed in the Indian Army, posted at Assam and does not contribute anything in the family, as he is already residing separately with his wife and children since 2010.

7] So far as the order passed by the Writ Appellate Court in W.A. No.157/2019 is concerned, the Division Bench has also noted para 4.1 of the Transfer Policy and has made the following observations:-

“6. Recently, this clause 4.1 of the policy again come for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.13/2020 in which Division Bench of this Court has held that merely rejecting the plea of writ petitioner on the ground that her brother is in employment is our considered may not be correct hence, the matter has been remitted back to conduct an enquiry with regard to the penury of the petitioner and as to whether her brother who h