Satish Kumar Agrawal vs State of M.P. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Seeking compassionate appointment in the establishment of M.P. Power Generating Company, Jabalpur after death of his brother, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner''s brother Late Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal was working as an Assistant Grade-III in the establishment of M.P. State Electricity Board and he died in harness on 24.10.1993 as is evident from Annexure-P1. It is stated that the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and when the same was not considered, this writ petition has been filed. Placing reliance in a scheme Annexure-P5 issued by the State Government and pointing out that the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment, his case is not considered in accordance with the requirement of the scheme, this petition is filed.

On notice being issued, Respondent No. 2 represented by Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel has filed a detailed reply and it is pointed out that initially, the M.P. State Electricity Board was the employer and after reorganization of the Board, the entire liability is of the reconstituted company. However, Shri Vivek Rusia brings to the notice of this Court the particulars of the scheme for compassionate appointment, as is made applicable in the respondent''s establishment by filing the documents Annexure-R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 & R6.

Shri Rusia, learned counsel points out that in the scheme applicable in the respondent''s establishment, there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent like the petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased/employee, Shri Rusia points out that it is only the son, widow and the unmarried daughter, who are entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. The brother of the deceased/employee does not come within the purview of the dependent and, therefore, no relief can be granted to him. As far as the scheme Annexure-P5 is concerned, it is stated by Shri Rusia that it is the scheme formulated by the State Government and is not applicable in the respondent''s establishment.

That apart, Shri Rusia, learned counsel points out that the brother of the petitioner died on 24.10.1993 and now after a period of more than 20 years, no compassionate appointment can be granted in the light of the well settled principles of law to the effect that the compassionate appointment is to be granted immediately after the death of the employee and after an inordinate period, no compassionate appointment can be granted.

In support of the aforesaid contention, Shri Rusia invites my attention to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh, , Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanchhedi Lal Ghasita Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, apart from referring to certain judgments filed along with the return.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no merits in the present writ petition. Apart from the fact that the compassionate appointment is now sought for, which is not permissible in view of the long period of time in the light of the legal principles of law, compassionate appointment is not a right accruing to a person concerned. Compassionate appointment is mode of recruitment in violation to Article 14 and it is only granted in accordance with the scheme for grant of compassionate appointment. In the scheme available on record, there is nothing to show that the brothers of the deceased/employee is entitled to compassionate appointment and in deviation of the scheme and in violation of the same, no mandamus can be issued. Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference, the petition is dismissed.