RAGHVENDRA DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 25/01/2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby, his representation for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

(2.) The contention of petitioner is that he is an adopted son of Late Shrimati Arunlata Dubey who was working on the post of Assistant Grade III in the respondents department. The petitioner submitted that his mother died in harness during her service on 29/11/1997. The petitioner is legally adopted son of Late Shrimati Arunlata Dubey which is evident from Annexure P-2. His name was also nominated in the service record by Late Shrimati Arunlata Dubey. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his mother and he attained majority on 12/08/2001. The petitioner preferred an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2001.

(3.) The respondents have considered his case for grant of compassionate appointment and vide letter dated 27/05/2002 (Annexure P-4), he was informed that there is vacancy for the post of Assistant Grade III and certainly he can be adjusted on the vacant post of Patwari and was recommended for Patwari training. On receiving the letter dated 27/05/2002, the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 19/07/2002, requested the authority for grant of permission to send the petitioner on Patwari training. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner, he received a letter dated 05/07/2003 (Annexure P-6) informing that his application cannot be considered. However, liberty was granted to him to prefer a detailed representation. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a representation for grant of compassionate appointment on 02/08/2003 (Annexure P-7). Since no action was taken by the respondents on the representation submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner had left with no option but to file W.P. No. 2135/2009(s) before this Court and this Court vide order dated 15/12/2011 directed the petitioner to resubmit representation along with GAD circular dated 20/08/2001. The said representation was decided on 25/01/2012 and the same was rejected on the ground that as per para 3 (1) of the circular dated 08/10/2012 (Annexure P-12), adopted son is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.