MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was initially working as a daily wager. Thereafter, vide order dtd. 16/8/2017 (Annexure P/4), the husband of the petitioner was classified as a permanent employee (Sthai Karmi). However, during the course of employment, the husband of the petitioner died on 14/10/2017 (Annexure P/1). Consequently, the petitioner is claiming that the respondents may be directed to grant her compassionate appointment as well as family pension. It is submitted that raising her grievance, the petitioner has also filed a representation on 7/10/2016 (Annexure P/6), which is still pending and has not been decided so far.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and placing reliance on the return has submitted that the petitioner's husband was working as a daily wager in the respondent-department. Therefore, being a daily wager, the husband of the petitioner was given the benefit of the circular dtd. 7/10/2016 and accordingly he was classified as a permanent employee (Sthai Karmi). It is contended that as per circular dtd. 7/10/2016, no right accrues to the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment on account of death of her husband, who was classified as a Sthai Karmi. It is submitted that as per the policy of compassionate appointment dtd. 29/9/2014 and the amendment brought thereto dtd. 31/8/2016 also, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment, as the husband of the petitioner was neither a regular employee appointed against a sanctioned vacant post nor he was appointed in the Work Charged and Contingency Establishment. So far as grant of family pension to the petitioner is concerned, since the petitioner's husband was not working as a regular employee in the regular establishment of the State, therefore, the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 are not applicant in the case of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. It is submitted that as per circular dtd. 7/10/2016 also, the petitioner is not entitled for any pension and prayed for dismissal of the petition.