GAURAV DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the arbitrary and malafide action on the part of respondents No.1 and 2 in not giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of his father who was posted in Sub-Jail, Shivpuri and had expired on 20/08/2004, while he was on duty. On 07/12/2004 mother of the petitioner had moved an application seeking appointment of the petitioner as a 'Boy Orderly', since there was no response, in the year 2015 the petitioner under Right to Information Act inquired about his pending application. Vide letter dtd. 21/07/2016 information was forwarded to the petitioner, where from it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that his candidature was rejected in lieu of clause 4.1 of the State Government's policy dtd. 18/08/2008, which speaks of noneligibility of a person for appointment on compassionate ground if any member of the family is already in Government service and since his mother was working in Janpad Panchayat as Assistant Grade III he was held not to be entitled.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was moved by the mother of the petitioner for his appointment on 07/12/2004, well within the time frame of 7 years as provided in the policy dtd. 18/08/2008, but since at that time he was minor aged about 11 years, his application was required to be considered as per clause 7.1 of the policy. It was further argued that it was only in the year 2016, when the petitioner sought information with regard to his application for compassionate appointment that he was informed that his application was rejected in the year 2011 itself and the same was informed to his mother vide communication dtd. 26/11/2011 and 25/06/2013. It was further contended that the ground of rejection was only that his mother was in government employment (Panchayat Services) and apart from that there was no other ground of rejection. It was further argued that the authorities misdirected themselves in rejecting the application in so far as the very ground of rejection was not tenable, as Panchayat services are not Government services. He placed reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Janpad Panchayat And Jila Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1992 MPLJ 804 and Panchayat Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in M.P.No.963/1983 passed on 30/7/1988.

(3.) Per contra learned Government Advocate while supporting the impugned rejection order and relying upon the averments made in the return memo contended that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged 11 years and was studying in Class VI and when his application was considered in the year 2011 it was found that his mother Smt. Lata Dubey was working as Assistant Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat and therefore as per clause 4.1 of the policy issued by GAD dtd. 18/08/2008, since one of the family member of the deceased employee was in Government service, the petitioner was held not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. It was further submitted that the rejection order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dtd. 07/08/2011 and the present petition had been filed in the year 2017, the petition suffers from delay and laches, hence deserves to be dismissed on this count also and lastly since as per the policy the claim for compassionate appointment can be considered only within seven years from the date of death of the employee, now at this belated stage appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.