PARITOSH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been turned down by the respondents while passing the impugned order contained in Annexure P/1 dtd. 06/02/2013. The claim of the petitioner has been turned down in view of the fact that the mother of the petitioner was employed as Assistant Grade-II with Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sehore.

(2.) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner was already employed on the date of the death of the father of the petitioner and the present petitioner was fully dependent upon his father. The factum of dependency was required to be taken note of in the light of the decision of Division Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Ritesh Mule Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. in WA No.1620/2018 which has been brought on record as Annexure P/11.

(3.) Counsel contends that the claim of the petitioner is required to be dealt with while deciding the issue as regards the dependency of the present petitioner on the deceased employee and also the fact that whether the petitioner's mother is providing sources of livelihood to the petitioner or not. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that the deceased's