AVINASH VERMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed against order dtd. 22/10/2020 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Datia in Case No. 3988/ft-i-@iapk-izdk s-@LFkk-@2020, by which application filed by petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that his mother is already working as Anganwadi worker.

(2.) It is the case of petitioner that father of petitioner died in harness on 22/9/2017. Petitioner filed an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. However his application has been rejected on the ground that since mother of petitioner is working on the post of Anganwadi worker, therefore, in the light of clause 4(ii) of the policy for compassionate appointment, he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(3.) Challenging the order passed by the Authority below, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that if another family member of the aspirant is a regular employee working in Government/semi Government Institution, or has been in contractual services for a period of 5 years or more, then such aspirant shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. By relying upon the appointment order of mother of petitioner, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that mother of petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker on 15/9/1998. In the appointment order, it was specifically mentioned that her appointment is temporary and can be terminated at any time. It is submitted that even otherwise as per the present guidelines, services of Anganwadi worker can be terminated after giving opportunity of hearing. The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 are not applicable to Anganwadi workers. Anganwadi workers do not get regular pay scale or increment but they are only entitled for honorarium. It is submitted that even otherwise appointment of Anganwadi worker cannot be treated as a contractual employment and, thus, the case of petitioner is not covered by clause 4(ii) of the policy for compassionate appointment. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Sasmita Sahoo Vs. State of Orrisa decided on 18/5/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 2342 of 2009 to submit that post of Aanganwadi worker is not a civil post and an Aanganwadi worker is not a holder of any statutory post.