GAYA PRASAD MEHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interesting conundrum in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner, brother of deceased employee, Durga Bai was entitled to get compassionate appointment as per the policy dated 22.01.2007.

(2.) The admitted facts between the parties are that Late Durga Bai, women Health Worker, died in harness on 04.09.2001. The present petitioner is brother of said employee. The petitioner submitted his candidature for grant of compassionate appointment. Petitioner has also provided the affidavits of parents of Late Durga Bai, wherein they have given consent for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis. In turn, the petitioner was appointed as a Peon by order dated 28.05.2007 (Annexure-P/4). The petitioner was served with a letter dated 23.10.2007, wherein it was directed to remain present in relation to a departmental inquiry pertaining to his compassionate appointment. The petitioner's salary was also withheld. The petitioner filed representation alongwith judgment passed in Case No.16/2001, delivered by Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur (Annexure-P/10). The respondents did not accept the said representation of the petitioner and terminated his services by order dated 28.03.2008 (Annexure-P/11).

(3.) The singular reason for terminating the services of the petitioner is that the petitioner was brother of a married Government Servant and as per the policy he was not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. Reliance is placed on Clause 2.3 of the policy.