LAWS(MPH)-2022-6-118

ASHISH SONI Vs. RANI DURGAVTI VISHVAVIDHYALAYA

Decided On June 24, 2022
Ashish Soni Appellant
V/S
Rani Durgavti Vishvavidhyalaya Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called in question the order dtd. 1/2/2021( Annexure P/10), by which, the application for appointment on compassionate basis has been turned down while holding that the petitioner is classified as 'Sthai karmi' pursuant to Circular dtd. 7/10/2016 and since, the Policy pertaining to conferment of benefit of compassionate appointment, does not contain any provision as regards extension of benefit to the dependents of an deceased employee, who was classified as 'Sthai Karmi", pursuant to Circular dtd. 7/10/2016, thus, the application of the petitioner cannot be acceded to.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, he was initially appointed on daily rated basis lateron his services were regularised however, the order of regularisation was thereafter, cancelled by the University vide order dtd. 30/8/2014. Lateron, the Department of General Administration, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh issued a Circular dtd. 7/10/2016, by which, a decision was taken by the Government to regularise the services of the daily rated employee while classifying them into three categories namely- Un-skilled/Semi- skilled/Skilled with pay-scale as described in paragraph-1.2 of the Circular. Accordingly, in pursuance of that Circular, the father of the petitioner was classified as 'Sthai karmi'. The father of the petitioner died while in service on 30/12/2019. Upon death of his father, the petitioner herein moved an application for compassionate appointment which has been turned down vide order dtd. 1/2/2021.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no embargo in the Policy pertaining to compassionate appointment dtd. 29/9/2014 that dependents of a deceased employee, who was classified as 'Sthai karmi', cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. Therefore, the counsel submits that since the services of the father of the petitioner were regularised by virtue of Circular dtd. 7/10/2016, his case ought to have been considered for appointment on compassionate basis and thus, prays for quashment of the impugned order.