PRATIBHA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-8-2008 passed by IVth Addl. District Judge, Dhar in Civil Appeal No. 6-A/2006, whereby the judgment dated 22-3-2006 passed by Ilnd Civil Judge Class II, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 52-A/2005, whereby suit filed by the appellant was decreed, was set aside, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a suit before the learned Civil Court on 17-7-2003 alleging that appellant is the daughter of Mahendra Singh Chouhan, who was working as Operator in the Department of Public Health Engineering and was posted at Sub-Division, Dhar. Further case of the appellant was that Mahendra Singh Chouhan died during course of his employment on 10-3-1997. At that time age of the appellant was 16 years. It was alleged that as per the Rules of the State Government appellant is entitled for a job being a dependent of the deceased. It was alleged that since mother of the appellant was not physically fit, therefore, she is not interested for compassionate appointment. It was also alleged that appellant is entitled for compassionate appointment with the consent of her mother. It is submitted that mother of the appellant has given in writing in the office of the respondents that upon completion of the age of 18 years appellant be placed in job in place of her father. It was alleged that an application was filed by the appellant on 8-11-1999 along with all the relevant documents, thereafter reminders were given from time-to-time from 8-11-1999 to 25-1-2001 but no reply was given. It was prayed that suit filed by the appellant be allowed and compassionate appointment be given to the appellant as per Rules, which were in existence at the time of death of her father.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondents by filing the written statement, wherein it was alleged that deceased Mahendra Singh Chouhan was a work charge employee, therefore, dependents of the deceased are not entitled for any relief. It was prayed that appellant is not entitled for compassionate appointment as of right. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the appointment be given to the appellant on the post of Class Ill/Class IV employee as per order No. C-3/94/3/1 dated 10-6-1994. It was also directed that the compassionate appointment of the appellant shall be treated w.e.f. 8-11-1999. In appeal filed by the respondents the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is set aside against which the present appeal has been filed.