SHILPI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M P GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. While seeking quashment of order dated 28.02.2013, petitioner also seeks quashment of clause 2.2 of order dated 22.01.2007.

(2.) Whereas, by order dated 28.02.2013 claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of death of her father has been negatived on the ground that she does not fall in the category of person who are entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as stipulated in clause 2.2 of the circular No. C-3-7-2000-3-,d Bhopal dated 22.01.2007. Clause 2.2 of the circular dated 22.01.2007 stipulates:

(3.) Father of the petitioner employed as Assistant Grade -II, District Treasury Officer, Mandla died in harness on 16.11.2012. He left behind two married daughters and a widow. That the widow of the deceased employee on 06.01.2013 gave an application for appointment of her married daughter (the petitioner) on compassionate ground that she (the widow) being dependent on the petitioner daughter and the daughter's husband being unemployed. The claim was turned down on the basis that as per policy in vogue (as per clause 2.2) the petitioner is not eligible. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashment of clause 2.2 of the policy dated 22.01.2007 on the ground that the same is violation of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it discriminates between sons and married daughters. That, there is no material nexus with the object sought to be achieved in enunciating clause 2.2 of the circular dated 22.01.2007. That, the petitioner was even otherwise dependent on her father as her husband is unemployed. That, there being no opposition of other family members, non-grant of compassionate appointment is arbitrary. Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision by Division Bench of Bombay High Court Swara Sachin Kulkarni v. Supdt. Engineer in writ petition No. 11987/2012 decided on 06.12.2013.