Deepak Kumar Shakyawar vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

This petition is directed against the order dated 12.8.2011, whereby the petitioner''s application for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that his father died on 15.12.1997. He attained majority in 2010. As per Government Circular dated 13.1.2011, the claim of only such persons can be considered who are dependent of employees, who expired after 13.12.2001.

Assailing this order, Shri R.P. Singh advanced singular contention. He submits that as per the judgment of this Court, reported in Heeralal Baria Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and Another, and Bhupendra Vs. State of M.P. and others, the claim of compassionate appointment is to be considered as per the policy, which was applicable on the date of death of the employee.

Prayer is opposed by the other side.

In the opinion of this Court, the point involved in this matter is no more res integra. It is considered by a three Judges Bench of this Court (FB) in Bank of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia and Another, In para 31 of the judgment, the Full Bench opined that the view expressed in Heeralal Baria (supra) is not correct. Thus, it is clear that petitioner is relying on an overruled judgment. In para 33(c), the Full Bench made it clear that the consideration has to be on the basis of policy prevalent at a particular point of time when consideration is made. In other words, the policy which was applicable at the time of consideration is relevant and the policy which was applicable at the time of death or submission of application is not relevant.

Apart from this, in the present case the father of petitioner died in the year 1997. Petitioner submitted application for appointment in 2010. The basic purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to provide helping hand to the family of the deceased Government servant. It cannot be done after a decade. There cannot be a reservation of vacancy till a candidate becomes major after number of years. This view is taken by Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, The relevant portion reads as under:-

3.....This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief

A Division Bench of this Court took same view in Beni Lal Bamney Vs. Union of India and others, and Riazuddin Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others,

Considering the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.