Rajendra Ahirwar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Calling in question tenability of an order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P. No. 4773/2014, this writ appeal has been filed.

Even though there is a delay of 18 days in filing of this appeal, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of condonation of delay.

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

They are also heard on the question of admission.

After the death of his father, the appellant filed application for compassionate appointment and when the same was rejected, he approached the Writ Court by filing W.P. No. 9628/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the State Government to consider his claim. The State Government considered his claim in the light of the policy which was invoke i.e. Annexure P/7 dated 18.8.2008 and on the basis of the provisions contained in Clause 4.1 it was found that younger brother of the appellant was already in government employment and by virtue of clause 4.1 of the policy, appellant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, his application was rejected. Learned Writ Court also rejected the same and therefore, this appeal is filed.

Even though learned counsel for the appellant tried to emphasize that clause 4.1 has to be interpreted by considering the fact as to whether the person who is seeking compassionate appointment is entitled for appointment or not and whether a person from the family is in government employment even prior to the death of the employee concerned.

We are of the considered view that this contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. Learned Writ Court in its detailed order has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Chhatisgarh and Others Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, and Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, and has considered the principles that compassionate appointment is not an appointment in accordance with rules, it is an appointment dehors the rules effecting the Fundamental rights of various other persons and therefore, it has to be done strictly in accordance to the policy and scheme formulated. In the policy in question Clause 4.1. reads as under :-

From the aforesaid clause it is clear that if any member of the family who can claim compassionate appointment is already in Government service or in service with Corporation, Board or any authority even prior to the death of the employee concerned, no further compassionate appointment to any other member of the family can be granted. Claim having been considered in accordance to the policy and clause 4.1 as it prohibits grant of compassionate appointment to family, where a person is already in employment in Government service and as in the present case, the younger brother of the appellant is already in Government service, no error is committed either by the State or by the Writ Court in rejecting the claim.

Accordingly finding no error apparent, the appeal is dismissed.