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. 27736 of 2021 DHARMENDRA PARTE 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:-

“In the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner humbly prays that this petition be allowed and by issuing, (1) Appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus or other, the impugned order rejecting the Petitioner’s claim or compassionate appointment be quashed.

(2) Appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus or other, Respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the Petitioner in terms of the existing policy, (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 02.11.2021, passed by the respondent No.2, whereby, the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his brother is posted in Indian Army.

Signature Not Verified

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, his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. 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. Thus, 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 submission 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 and 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 whereas, the petitioner has also averred in the petition that the mother of the petitioner Ramibai W/o Late Gangaprasad Parte has filed an affidavit to the effect that she resides with the petitioner only and the petitioner is shouldering all the responsibilities after the demise of her husband. She has also stated that her son is employed in the Indian Army, posted at Assam and does not contribute in the family.

Signature Not Verified

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 had secured the employment is taking care of the family or not or other related issues. In the said case, the Writ Court had dismissed the writ petition placing reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Prajesh (supra). In the case in hand also the mother has