SHAILENDRA SARATHE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2008 by which the claim of compassionate appointment submitted by the mother of the petitioner, Mamta Sarethe has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, his father late Tularam Sarathe was appointed as Driver in the Water Resources Department. He died while in service on 24.3.2004. After his death, mother of the petitioner submitted a representation seeking compassionate appointment. By order dated 11.8.2008, the respondents rejected the representation on the ground that Tularam Sarathe was appointed in contingency establishment as daily rated employee. Therefore, he can not be appointed on compassionate basis. After the aforesaid the mother of the petitioner did not challenge the said order and the petitioner also did not submit any claim for compassionate appointment. In the year 2018, the petitioner served a legal notice to respondents and thereafter filed the present petition.

(3.) It is settle law that the claim of compassionate appointment is liable to be considered under the policy prevailing at the time of death in view law laid down by the Apex Court in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 .