SOHAN JOSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner claiming a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh for grant of compassionate appointment, after quashment of the orders dated 05.08.2010 and 22.03.2011.

(2.) It is contended that the father of the petitioner was working as Head Constable (Driver) in the 6 th Battalion S.A.F., Jabalpur, who died while in service on 28.06.2010. On account of death of the bread earner of the family, the entire family came to the stage of starvation. The application was made by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment but the same was rejected on the ground that the eldest brother of the petitioner is in the employment of Government of Chhattisgarh and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for employment on compassionate ground. Since the eldest brother of the petitioner was not maintaining the family, as he was employed in the other State, the mother of the petitioner made request for grant of compassionate appointment so2 that remaining family of the deceased employee could be maintained. In fact the family, which was living with the deceased employee was consisting of three sons, one daughter and the wife. It is contended in the petition that though affidavits to the effect were filed but instead of considering the same, again the representation was rejected by subsequent order dated 22.03.2011, therefore, this writ petition was required to be filed.

(3.) On service of the notice of the writ petition, a response has been filed by the respondents and it is contended that in terms of the policy of compassionate appointment, which was in vogue at the relevant time, the claim of the petitioner was examined. The fact remains that on the date of death, the policy of the year 2008 was in vogue. There is a specific provision made in the policy that in case any of the members of the family of deceased is in the employment in Government departments or any Board, Mandal or any Council, the dependant of the deceased employee would not be entitled to grant of compassionate appointment. It is stated in the return that since the eldest brother of the petitioner, by name Mohan Joshi, is posted as Constable (Driver) in the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner was not found fit to be granted compassionate appointment and accordingly the claim made by the petitioner was rightly rejected. The representation submitted by the mother of the petitioner was also rejected in view of the aforesaid reasons. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any compassionate appointment.