BHAWNA CHOURASIA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court for the same grievance. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that petitioner's mother Janki Chourasia, an Assistant Teacher died in harness on 26.1.2013. The petitioner, the only daughter, preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected on 23.1.2014 Annexure P-4. Aggrieved, petitioner filed W.P. No. 13325/2014 which was disposed of as per settlement arrived at in Lok Adalat on 13.4.2014. As per the settlement, the respondents were required to take a fresh decision on the claim of compassionate appointment as per the applicable policy. In turn, by order dated 23.1.2014, the outcome was communicated. Although a new policy dated 29.9.2014 is now invogue which contains a clause which enables the employer to consider the claim of married daughter, the said claim qua petitioner cannot be considered in the teeth of clause 12.2 of this policy dated 29.9.2014.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although clause 12.2 of this policy provides that previously preferred and rejected/disposed of claims shall not be considered, such impediment is bad in law and hits Article 14, 15, 16, 39(a), 42, 51(1)(k), 243D(3) and 243T(3) of the Constitution of India. He submits that different High Courts have disapproved the action of respective state governments in depriving the married daughter from the fruits of compassionate appointment. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Karnataka High Court reported in ILR 1992 KAR 3416 (R. Jayamma v. Karnataka Electricity Board), Madras High Court reported in 2015-3 L.W. 756 (R. Govindammal v. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department) and Bombay High Court reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1549 (Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni v. The Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle and another). He submits that clause 12.2 is bad in law and it deprives the petitioner despite her eligibility otherwise.

(3.) Prayer is opposed by Shri Sheetal Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Tiwari submits that as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the policy at the time of consideration is relevant policy which will govern the field. As per the policy of 2008, since there existed no enabling provision, petitioner's claim was rejected on 23.1.2014. In the light of clause 12.2 of New Policy dated 29.9.2014, petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim compassionate appointment.