AJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier round of litigation in WP No.3851/2007(s), order dtd. 1/8/2004 was challenged, by which the petitioner was directed to submit all requisite documents in support of his application for compassionate appointment due to the death of his father Sundar Lal Sharma, who was working in Public Works Department on Class-IV post. In that petition, the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner being adopted son of the deceased/employee who died in harness, deserves to be appointed on compassionate basis. This court vide order dtd. 16/12/2009 (Annexure P/1) had relegated the matter to the authorities and directed the petitioner to submit requisite documents as required by the department within 60 days to respondent No.4. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted the documents but the claim was not decided. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed WP No.13345/2010 which was disposed of vide award dtd. 9/9/2017 passed by the Lok Adalat with direction to the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order passed in Lok Adalat, representation Annexure P/3 dtd. 24/10/2017 was submitted which has again been rejected vide order dtd. 6/2/2018 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that as per the policy, the dependent of the government servant would be eligible for compassionate appointment only if the post is available within seven years from the date of death of the deceased/employee. Hence, prayed for quashment of the order dtd. 6/2/2018 (Annexure P/4).

(3.) Per Contra, learned counsel for the State submits that vide order dtd. 16/12/2009 passed in WP No.3851/2007(s), the petitioner was directed to submit complete documents within sixty days before the authorities, however, it is not clear from the record, when such documents were submitted, as the petitioner has not submitted any acknowledgment as regards when such documents have been submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's claim was rejected in the year 2007, which is apparent from Annexure P/8 dtd. 6/8/2010, in which there is a mention that petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has not disclosed such fact in the memo of petition, however, learned counsel for the State has read from the earlier memo of petition of W.P.No.13345/2010 that such order was challenged in the said petition. However, without disclosing such fact, petitioner has only prayed for deciding his representation which was allowed vide award dtd. 9/9/2017 passed in W.P.No.13345/2010 by Lok Adalat. As the order passed in the year 2007 remained unchallenged, the petitioner's representation has again been decided on the basis of the policy vide the impugned order dtd. 6/2/2018 (Annexure P/4) and on the aforesaid basis prayed for dismissal of the petition.