Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/5995/2020 of RAJESH KAMLIYA Vs TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARION THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5995 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH KAMLIYA S/O LATE. SHRI RATNA KAMLIYA,AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, VILL. PIPAL KHUNTA TEHSIL -,MEGHNAGAR DISTRICT- JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATWARI, ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTPRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.COMMISSIONER TRIBAL DEVELOPMENTD EPARTM EN T SATPUDA BHAVAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)D EPARTM EN T SATPUDA BHAVAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.THE COLLECTOR JHABUA OFFICE OF THECOLLECTOR JHABUA DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYAPRADESH)COLLECTOR JHABUA DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.ASST. COMMISSIONER TRIBAL DEVELOPMENTD EPARTM EN T JHABUA DISTRICT JHABUA(MADHYA PRADESH)D EPARTM EN T JHABUA DISTRICT JHABUA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated26.11.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Respondent No. 1, whereby theclaim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:-
(I) The petitioner is the son of the deceased employee Late Shri RatnaKamliya, who was working in the Respondents department on the post ofAssistant Teacher. During service, he expired on 14.09.1998. At that time, thepetitioner was only 4 months old and the petitioner is the only son of thedeceased employee. The family pension which is being paid to his mother is theonly source of income and as per the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service(Pension) Rules 1976, after 7 years of the death of the employee, the familypension has been reduced as minimum of the pension, therefore, the financialcondition of the family is very poor.
(II) On attaining the age of majority i.e., 18 years immediately within aperiod of 1 year, the petitioner applied for the compassionate appointmentunder the Policy dated 29.09.2014 applicable at the time of the death of hisfather. Vide the impugned order the respondents have rejected the claim of thepetitioner on the ground that as per Clause 3.2 of the aforesaid Policy, theclaim for compassionate appointment can be considered only for the period of7 years from the date of death and since the petitioner has applied forcompassionate appointment after 18 years of the death, therefore, the petitioneris not eligible for the compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved, thepetitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondentsheavily erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner in as much as therespondents failed to consider the Proviso to Clause 3.2 of the Policy. Clause 3.2 of the Policy including Proviso is reproduced below:- 3.2 सभी “कार के अनुकंपा िनयुि” के “करण” म शासक य सेवक क मृत्युिदनांक से 07 (सात) वष तक पद उपलब्ध होने पर ही उसके आ��त को अनुकंपािनयुि क पा ता होगी:
परन्तु मृत शासक य सेवक क यिद “थम संतान मृत्यु क” ित थ को अवयस्कहोवे तो केवल ऐसी “थम संतान को व्यस्क होने क” ित थ से एक वष तक अनुकंपािनयुि अन्यथा पा होने क दशा म “दान क” जा सकेगी।
From the aforesaid, it is clear that as per the Proviso "a person afterattaining the age of majority has to apply for compassionate appointmentwithin a period of 1 year from attaining such majority". The petitioner afterattained the age of majority i.e., 18 years immediately applied for thecompassionate appointment within a period of 1 year, therefore, the claim of thepetitioner could not have been rejected.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed theprayer and submitted that the claim for compassionate appointment of thepetitioner has been rightly rejected as per the Policy dated 29.09.2014.Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. On perusal of Clause 3.2 of the Policy, the Proviso states that assoon as the candidate becomes major and deceased employee was having onlyone son then he is eligible to apply for the compassionate appointment within aperiod of 1 years from the date of attaining majority. In the instant case, thepetitioner had applied within 1 year of becoming major. As such, the reasonassigned for rejecting the claim cannot be countenanced. In view of theaforesaid, the order dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure P-9) is hereby set-aside. Therespondents are directed to consider the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner afresh strictly as per the Policy dated 29.09.2014,Proviso to Clause 3.2 of the Policy as expeditiously as possible preferablywithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of theorder and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
7. In case the petitioner is found eligible for appointment, then the orderof appointment may also be issued within the aforesaid period.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with the aforesaiddirections.
No order as to costs.
Vatan
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)JUDGE