Amit Kumar Kakodiya. vs State of Madhya Pradesh & others.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 20.10.2009 (AnnexureR/1), whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is rejected by the department.

Criticizing this order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner''s father died on 04.09.1998. At the time of death of petitioner''s father, the petitioner was only eight years old. After attaining the age of majority, he preferred application for grant of compassionate appointment. The said application is rejected solely on the ground that as per circular dated 18.08.2008, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted after seven years from the date of death of the employee. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said rejection order runs contrary to the order passed by this Court reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 150 [Narendra Singh Umath vs. State of M.P. & others], which is

The prayed is opposed by the department by contending that the clause of the policy are different in the present case. As per the policy in vogue (dated 18.08.2008 Annexure-R/2), the petitioner was not entitle to be considered.

No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard the parties at length and pursued the record.

A full bench of this Court in 2010 (3) MPLJ 213 [Bank of Maharashtra & another vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia & another], opined that the policy which was prevailing at the time of consideration is relevant, and eligibility/entitlement can be decided as per that. This judgment is followed in 2016 (1) MPLJ 634 [Pinki Yadav vs. State of M.P. & others].

It is apt to mention here that in the case of Narendra Singh Umath (supra), this Court did not consider the full bench judgment passed in the case of Bank of Maharashtra (supra). In Narendra Singh Umath (supra), this Court opined that the policy which was applicable before the date of consideration or at the time of death of the employee will be applicable. In view of the full bench judgment aforesaid, the view taken in Narendra Singh Umath (supra) cannot be followed. Pertinently, the view taken in the case of Narendra Singh Umath (supra) is followed in the case of Ram Kumar Ade (supra). As per full bench judgment passed in the case of Bank of Maharashtra (supra), the policy which was applicable at the time of consideration is relevant. The clause 7.1 of policy dated 22.01.2007, and clause 3.2 of policy dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure-R/2) make it clear that a candidate is eligible for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment if he submits application within seven years from the date of death of the employee. This consideration shall be subject to availability of the post. The petitioner has not challenged the relevant/offending clauses of polices dated 22.01.2007 & 18.08.2008, which debar him from consideration. In absence thereof, I am unable to hold that the petitioner was entitled to be considered after seven years for the date of death of his father. For the reasons stated above and as per principles laid down in the full bench judgment passed in the case of Bank of Maharashtra (supra) no relief is due to the petitioner. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.