LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-53

PINKI YADAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On November 26, 2015
Pinki Yadav Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 4.3.2015 passed by the Collector, Chhatarpur, seeking compassionate appointment on account of the death of her mother who died while in service on 24.11.2012 on the post of L.H.V at Public Health Centre, Nowgaon, District Chhattarpur.

(2.) The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 22.2.2013, however, her application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the authorities by order dated 5.2.2014 as is evident from a perusal of Annexure P-5. Subsequently, the petitioner again applied for reconsideration of her case in view of the new policy for compassionate appointment notified by the State Government on 29.9.2014 stating that in view of the changed criteria in para 4.1 of the policy, the disqualification for appointment on compassionate appointment is incurred only when any member of the family is in regular service of the State, Corporation, Board, etc. It was submitted that as the petitioner's brother was working as a contractual Assistant Draftsman in the MANREGA, therefore, the disqualification that was prescribed in para 4.4 of the policy dated 18.8.2008 would not apply to the petitioner in view of the amended criteria prescribed in para 4.1 of the new policy notified on 29.9.2014. It is stated that in spite of the relaxation of the criteria in para 4.1 of the new policy, the respondent authorities have again considered and rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment by the impugned order dated 4.3.2015.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner's brother is working on contractual basis, the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment is liable to be reconsidered and allowed in view of the amended criteria prescribed in the new policy dated 29.9.2014 and the stand of the respondents in the return being contrary to the said Clause 4.1 of the policy, deserves to be rejected.