KANTI VALLABH ADHWARYU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking review/recall of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court on 03-08-2004, in W.P. No. 6275/2002, this review application has been filed on 08-02-2012 i.e. after a period of more than 8 years for dismissal of the original writ petition. In the original Writ Petition No. 6275/2002, respondent no. 5 Dilip Kumar Pathak came out with a case that his father late Brij Bihari Pathak was working as a peon in Municipal Council, Tikamgarh, he died in harness on 27-03-1999. Thereafter he had submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 16-08-1999. The Municipal Council has passed a resolution on 28-10-1999 resolving to appoint him on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector, Class-III post and approval and consent was given by the competent authority but when no appointment order was issued, a writ petition was filed. The writ petition came up for hearing on 03/08/2004. It is seen from the order that the parties agreed that petitioner was entitled for appointment and thereafter the petition was disposed of directing the respondents to appoint Dilip Kumar Pathak as Revenue Sub Inspector (Class III) Cadre) in Municipal Council, Tikamgarh.

(2.) After the order was passed in the year 2004 and when Dilip Kumar Pathak was appointed, it is seen that the petitioner has now approached this court pointing out that as per guidelines and policy for compassionate appointment, Dilip Kumar Pathak was not entitled to appoint on Class-III post and as he is appointed on Class-III post, right of the petitioner seeking promotion to the said will be adversely affected. It is seen that claiming the same relief earlier, the petitioner approached this court in the year 2006 by filing W.P. No. 5135/2006(S) and on 30-01-2012 the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file a review application.

(3.) Be that as it may be when the matter was pending before this court on 09-04-13, statement was made on behalf of the respondents that they are willing to appoint the petitioner on Class III post treating it to be a special case. Accordingly on 09-04-2013, this court issued the following directions: