GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Vs. PREMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal against the order dtd. 20/8/2018 passed in W.P. No.5436/2017 whereby Writ Court has directed State to consider the case of the writ petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on merit ignoring clause 4.1 of the policy dtd. 29/9/2014.

(2.) Vide letter dtd. 18/10/2016, the Collector Ujjain has sought direction from Principal Secretary, GAD of Madhya Pradesh for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in view the condition No.4.1 of the policy dtd. 29/9/2014. Vide letter dtd. 10/11/2016, the Deputy Secretary of GAD of Madhya Pradesh has held that in view of clause 4.1, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get the compassionate appointment. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition, and it came to be allowed vide order dtd. 20/8/2018 on the ground that the employment in the Indian Army is a tenure appointment. The Writ Court has held that the brother of the writ petitioner after joining the Indian Army has been living separately and for which the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the above direction given by the writ court the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this Writ Appeal on the ground that since the elder brother of the writ petitioner is already in employment of Indian Army, which makes the petitioner ineligible to claim the compassionate appointment by virtue of condition No.4.1 of the policy dtd. 29/9/2014. it is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate for the appellant that the language of clause 4.1 is very clear, no other interpretation can be given. Even otherwise the policy of compassionate appointment is only a policy framed by the Government has no statutory force, hence, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the State for providing employment. Shri Garg learned Government Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Court in the case of Prajesh Vs. State of M.P. in which clause 4.1 of the aforesaid policy has been examined and held that the dependent of the deceased's family is not entitled to a compassionate appointment if one of the family members is in Government Service, even if he is not supporting the other dependent, therefore, the order passed by Writ Court runs contrary to the aforesaid judgment, hence, liable to be set aside.