MANISH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 23/8/2024 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of his father Late Mukesh Pandit has been rejected on the ground that petitioner has failed to file copy of the registered adoption deed for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the adopted son of Late Shri Mukesh Kumar Pandit. The father of the Petitioner Late Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandit S/o Shri Balkrishna Pandit was working on the post of Assistant Grade-3 under the Office of Development Block Education Officer, Tribal Affairs Department Dist Barwani. On 12/04/2022 the father of the petitioner Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandit died while he was serving on the said post and the father of the petitioner was the sole earning member of the family. Subsequently, due to the loss of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner's family became impecunious due to which the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment with all the relevant documents including adoption document executed on the affidavit dtd. 12/01/2019. In accordance with the qualifications and rules and being the adopted son of late Mukesh Kumar Pandit, the petitioner was capable of being posted at Grade 3 level on compassionate basis. However, the respondents have not considered the adoption document executed on affidavit submitted by the petitioner instead the petitioner was asked to be present with the Registered Adoption Deed on 15/08/2023 before deciding the application else the Respondent shall take action as per the prescribed procedure and rules. The registration of the adoption deed is not mandatory as per the provisions of law and therefore, being aggrieved of the impugned demand of registered adoption deed and nonappointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis, the petitioner prefers this petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that aforesaid reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is contrary to clause 2.5 of the circular/policy dtd. 29/10/2024. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No. 25767/2024 which was disposed of by order dtd. 6/8/2024. The operative portion of the order reads as under :-