RADHU VIRALE Vs. ENERGY DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dt. 18.8.2015 by which his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his brother is already in employment.

(2.) The father of the petitioner Late Shri Karsan Rukhdiya, was an employee of the then M.P. State Electricity Board. He was a Lineman and unfortunately died on 7.8.2006 due to electrocution while performing his duties. After his death, he has left behind the wife, the petitioner and two sons. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment having necessary qualification and eligibility for the post. By order dt. 30.3.2010 the respondent has turned down his application on the ground that there is a ban on compassionate appointment vide Circular dt. 1.9.2000. Thereafter the State of M.P. Bifurcated Board into various Companies. The M.P. P.K.V.V.C. Ltd. has framed the Policy for compassionate appointment in the year 2013 and made it applicable w.e.f. 10.4.2012. By order dt. 29.12.2014 the Company has made it applicable in respect of those employees who died from 15.11.2000 to 10.4.2012 while on duty due to accident. The petitioner again submitted an application for compassionate appointment. When appointment was not provided, he approached this Court by way of present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to grant him appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Arun Singh Bhadouriya vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2009(2) M.P.H.T. 277 (DB) decided on 30.1.2009.

(3.) After notice, the respondents have filed the reply by submitting that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as per Clause 3.4 of the amended Policy, 2013 as his brother is already working in the Panchayat Services. By order dt. 18.8.2015 the application for compassionate appointment has already been rejected. Thereafter the petitioner made amendment in the writ petition by challenging the order dt. 18.8.2015. The petitioner has also raised additional ground that the shiksha karmis are not the government employees therefore, Clause 3.4 does not apply in the case of the petitioner.