RAHUL SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dtd. 15/9/2023 (Annexure P/1) whereby petitioner's request for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by virtue of Clause 4.1 of policy, dtd. 29/9/2014.

(2.) The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner's father, late Shri Shiromani Singh Parmar, as working as Officiating Head Constable in 29th Battalion, SAF, Datia. He expired on 1/2/2022 while in service. After his death, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 17/1/2023 (Annexure P/6). This application has been rejected by impugned order, dtd. 15/9/2023.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of compassionate appointment by invoking Clause 4.1 of the policy, dtd. 29/9/2024, on ground that her sister is already in the Government employment. He submitted that the petitioner's sister has already married on 9/12/2022 and, therefore, she cannot be considered to be a member of family of the deceased-father and, therefore, the provisions of Clause 4.1 of the policy are not attracted. He submitted that the petitioner's sister once married, is not expected to take care of the dependents of family of the father. He thus submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be set-aside. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Somyashree reported in (2021)12 SCC 20 as also in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Premlata reported in (2022)1 SCC 30.