Mohit Kumar Gaikwad vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard. Petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 28.8.2012 and a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a regular Class IV appointee in Scale Rs. 2550-3200 w.e.f 5.9.2009 and pay the petitioner the difference of arrears.

The petitioner is a compassionate appointee appointed by order dated 3.9.2009 in lieu of death of his father, employed as Assistant Teacher, died in harness on 15.7.2006. By order dated 3.9.2009 the petitioner was appointed as Waterman in Balak Ashram, Chandragarh, Block Development Amarpur, Janpad Panchayat Amarpur, district Dindori at Collector''s rate.

That, in 2012, the petitioner filed a representation seeking appointment on a regular post. The said representation was, however, turned down by impugned order dated 28.8.2012 on the ground that after being appointed on compassionate ground the petitioner cannot be given a fresh appointment again on the same count and in respect of regularization the petitioner was informed that there are 17 employees already short-listed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the claim of the petitioner shall be considered only after they are regularized. Contention of the petitioner is that he was entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground on regular post and not at Collector''s rate. However, no provisions in the policy has been commended at as would substantiate the claim of the petitioner that he ought to have been appointed on a regular post in regular establishment.

Trite it is that appointment on compassionate ground is to salvage the family of a deceased government servant from immediate financial penury. It is not a right but only a privilege. It is also not the mode of recruitment. An appointment on compassionate ground having once made will not entitle to seek a better appointment on the self same ground. When adjudged thus, the impugned communication dated 28.8.2012 cannot be faulted with. The order passed in Smt. Dukkhu Bai Kewat v. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 748/2009 (S) decided on 14.2.2011 is also of no assistance to the petitioner as no decision has been taken therein that an appointment on compassionate ground can only be on regular post. The order passed in Dukkhu Bai Kewat (supra) turns on its own facts. Having thus considered this Court does not find any substance in the claim put-forth by the petitioner. Since no relief can be granted, petition fails and is dismissed.