GAJPAL SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the petition is for quashment of the order Annexure P/1 dated 20/03/03 whereby application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was dismissed. Short facts of the case are that Late Shri Bahadursingh Rathore was in the employment of respondents and was posted as Head Constable, who died on 23/07/01. An application was filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner is eligible for the post of Constable, therefore, application filed by the petitioner be considered and the petitioner be appointed as Constable on compassionate ground. The application was taken into consideration and was dismissed, against which present petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the respondents is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed only on the ground that the brother of the petitioner is in Government employment, hence the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that Ishwarsingh Rathore is brother of the petitioner, who was working as Siksha Karmi, Class-III, whose certificate is on record as Annexure P/12, wherein it is alleged that the salary of Ishwarsingh Rathore is Rs.2,312/-per month. It is submitted that the respondents committed eror in dismissing the application on the ground that the brother of the petitioner is in Government employment. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

(3.) Reply has been submitted by the respondents, wherein it is alleged that for the purpose of compassionate appointment policy dated 01/05/2000 has been introduce by the State Government, according to which if any member of the family of the deceased employee is in Government job, then other member of the family is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that since the brother of the petitioner is in employment, therefore, the application has rightly been dismissed.