7§T i^^] ^0^ BSPOW, Tfffi M.y. AaMlNISiaAriVE TRIBBNAI., BENCH tJ^BABUR(MP) " ffiPLlCMT i- Ka» Sara^hya: 6aEa»t aste«l::,2S ye<i£S' . E^s I.ate staKl Puaas&ittan Ra» ea»a*l G/9 M;aBayaa. Shwfe, yst-jgazin'Tatosid. V'E R S-U ;S 'BWIS i- ^St.lte »fM.wlhy.i fxa^esh Tfa—ushGN.t seroetwy y»I,JlAh Btaawan, »N»yai 2^T»ia^ Qiseefsx »uM,d.®aBSteeactlsns • ,Bai»U3E:,Bivisrn Bai»uw,.M»P» d 3» G»i8Bl;ssi.»B«BepoM.i.e jnstBuetJfas Dtaeetasate ^a.B<hyaeh<l Bhawan, OET«I.SOF APWSGAnON 1. yarSisylaES »S ti»e .iniklieant s (i) f (<d) : AS aiww» 3. -..,& ^»-^^}s^T' ?a»ticulars»f tl»® (i) to(vi) AS akavr ./-I PaEtieulaBS »f the •ralez against whiefa agiiaUeat.irn is ma<e* Tbt <qi»».i.l<?«iti.»nijs agains-fe the f»U»wiaii •TBlCB. {- ' . . •' (' ; Wi.th Eefetenc'e ^k wnexure W 02-atKE N». s Wenw N«»/sth».»^wa»»iyu^?</ 44U Da€e^/-22.S.W. ,(U) Date , •1 s 22»S»»&. . (ill}?assB*l>y j aea|wotleBtN»*2< {tv} SUBJBei SS SS3.SF t- , . ' ' Tfee taiylicaR'fe1' s fatheas teUae^ as yBiaeiyal '• f.EWB-e»»eeBUB®ntBi<|taez SecandaEy Gi.Bls Sehwl Navuwwa aazln ©isteitstaaii»uit, »*»»<in 2.8.2»j»«i»'an«| v<^~- L ,-'" ,*• • »>KS*' es'1 ^? E lllHiitl^'S ^?ITW!tnTS;^'^^^^ ffit^s:R!81ii! ^ l(t \ 'l) -n,^- ^ ^ ^ f^[OLl £>:>' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ^NGLEBENCH_: HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRFVASTAVA.J. Writ Petition (S) No^ 1503/2005 PETITIONER Ku. Sandhya Garad Versus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh and two others ORDER POST ON ^''FEBRURARY, 2010 SA:'^S^as ^^" ,^'a ^ss^'^ r~T s^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Writ Petitlon (S) No.1503/2005 PETITIONER Ku. Sandhya Garad RESPONDENTS Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others Appearance: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Itu Rani Mukharjee counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on ^ .02.2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Annexure A- 8 dated 22.5.1996, passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointraent has been rejected. 2. Facts, in brief, are that petitioner's father retired as a Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary Girls School, Nawapara Rajim, District-Raipur on 28.2.1995. Thereafter, he died on 8.2.1996. He left behind his widow Smt. Shanti, aged 61 years, a retired teacher and the petitioner, the only daughter. According to the petitioner, there existed a Circular No. F-3-5/75/3/l, dated 24.3.1975 wherein amongst other, it was provided that compassionate appointment to a member of the family of a retired Govt. servant would be given on priority basis in the matter of appointment if the Govt. seryant died within a period of 3 years from the date of his retirement. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application along with testimonials on 4.4.1996 to 2nd respondent for considering her case for appointment on priority/compassionate basis in pursuance of aforesaid circular dated 24.3.1975. According to the petitioner, she is highly qualified having passed M.A. (Hindi) in 1994, which is evident from Annexure A-7. She also completed requisite education required for employment and was therefore entitled to get employment in furtherance of policy promulgated vide circular dated 24.3.1975. 3. However, vide impugned order dated 22.5.1996 (Annexure A-8) her application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected. 4. Learned senior counsel vehemently submitted that there existed a policy for gra.nt of compassionate/priority employment and as the father of the petitioner had died on 8.2.1996 i.e. within 3 years from the date of his retirement dated 28.2.1995, the impugned order rejecting application of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The petitioner was entitled for appointment which claim was illegally rejected. 5. In the return filed by the respondent, it has been submitted that subsequent to Circular dated 24.3.1975 (Annex.A-3), a further Circular was issued on 4.7.1977, copy of which placed on record as Annexure R-l, which was issued in reference to earlier circulars. Later on, a comprehensive policy of compassionate appointment was issued vide GAD Circular dated 18.6.1994 (Anne.R-2) in supersession of all previous circulars which held the field on the date the father of the petitioner died. After promulgation of new policy dated 18.6.1994 (Annexure R-2), the eariier policy of giving compassionate appointment to the dependents of Govt. employee, who died within 3 years from the date of his retirement was not available and therefore there is no illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 1 ..I^ts" ,ii'";;».fi t / '^^-^. 'lglll •^g^s -3- 6. Learned senior counsel submitted that the earlier policy dated 24th March 1975 continued to be in force even after promulgation of new policy dated 18.6.1994 inasmuch as perusal of policy dated 18th June 1994 would show that though other previous policies were superseded, this particular policy dated 24.3.1975 was not superseded meaninj thereby the same was also continued. He also submits that policy dated 4th July, 1977 was only clarificatoiy and was not in supersession of policy dated 24.3.1975. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a perusal of policy dated 18.6.1994 showthat earlier policy dated 4.7.1977 Annexure R-l having been superseded, it impliedly superseded and brought to an end, the policy of compassionate /priority appointment proraulgated vide circular dated 24.3.1975. 8. I have considered rival submissions ofthe parties. 9. It is difficult for this Court to accept the contention of learned senior counsel that notwithstanding promulgation of new policy dated 18.6.1994, earlier policy dated 24.3.1975 continued to exist. A perusal of policy dated 18.6.1994 would show that it was intended to bring about a comprehensive policy in supersession of all previous policies in the matter of compassionate appointment on priority basis. Under the Schedule appended, policy dated 4.7.1977 has been shown to be superseded. It would be seen that various policies which were issued . since 1973 up to 1993 were all superseded. It is therefore not possible to accept that the policy dated 24.3.1975 was kept alive. It appears that the respondents did not consider it necessaiy to specifically mention policy dated 24.3.1975 in the Schedule of superseded raemorandums, as in place of policy dated 24.3.1975, policy dated 4.7.1977 was brought into effect . Even though policy dated 4.7.1977 0, .8S| j .^y -4- ^ does not specifically mentions that it superseded earlier policy dated 24.3.1975, contents of the same would indicate that the earlier policy dated 24.3.1975 merged in the later policy dated 4th July 1977 with certain more clarifications. 10. Even otherwise, contents of the policy dated 18.6.1994 particularly Clause -13 thereof clearly provided that if a Govt. serpant dies during the period of extension in service or during the course of his re- appointment, the benefit of compassionate appointment will not be available. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, this would lead to an anomalous situation that on one hand if the Govf. servant dies within a period of 3 years from the date of his retirement, his dependent would be entitled to compassionate appointment, but in a case where Govt. servant dies during extended period of service or during the course of re-appointment, no such appointment would be granted to their dependents. This clearly indicates that the Govt. had no intention to keep alive any other policy for compassionate appointment issued and in force prior to 18.6.1994. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in this petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 12. No order as to cost. __.—-——~~ Sinha —£-suiwau"