XN THE S'SK'SS KBm-StSVSWCIVS TRIBHNAL EBNCW AT ^TPU^-M'P. O.A.N©<^ep&o^^^ -04^^ EETWSES Prem Lal Bansena S/o Late Sharl. Bhagirathl Bans®na» aged alaout 38 years, resldeat ef Vlllage Kosan Nara, Post @SSi.se Blianagar,Tahsil and Blstriet Ralgarh (MP). AN B 1. Tha Sfeate of Madhya Pradesh, threugto the Seeretary Bepartaent ®fSchoal Edaeafelon» Vallabh •»awan» BH@PM<« 2. The DtE8Ct®r» Publle InstraetloitSt BHOPAfc. 3« Zlla Paaehayat^ Raigarh. Bleek Bduaatlon OtfleeE* Pussere, Blstri.e'b Ratgarh ( ). Respwadeats APPIalB ATIQN imDER SBGTZQN 19 QF THE AStfENISTBATIVE TRIBU1SAI.S A©T ''lh"^teJiK^ 4 '^ WRIT PETITSON (Sl N0.3343/2005 Prem Lal Dansena Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others linate Bench: Hon'ble ShriMamndra MohaiLShrivastava, J, Present:- Shri B. D. Guru, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, G.A. for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 11th day of March, 2010) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finallv. (2) This petition was fi!ed by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment on account of death of his father Bhagirathi Dansena, who died on 01-08-1968. An application for grant of compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner in the year 1996, as at the timeof death of his father, petitioner was minor. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner had attained majority in the year 1988, therefore, subsequentiy, application for grant of compassionate appointment was made. It is also argued that in similar case of death of a government servant before 1972. compassionate appointment was granted ifi the year 1990 (Annexure A-4). !n that case, death of empioyee had taken place on 12-10-1970 as is evident from Annexure A-5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-consideration of the case of the ^ :!^ -»:> \ $ t. ^,SW~y ^ ^•^y petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has resulted in discrimination. (4) No return has been filed by She respondents. (5) !n this case, father of the petitioner had died on 01-08-1968 and the petitioner attained majority on 10-04-1988. Thus, no explanation offered as to why, petitioner did not apply for compassionate appointment till 1996 i.e. more t'nan 8 years. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the members of the family in harness. (6) In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 3ncS others, 2001 ffj M.P.H.T. 1, the Supreme Court held as under:- 3. We are unabie to agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court has hetd in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family ofthe deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had ieft the family in penury and without any means of liveiihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Dfrector of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar, (1398} 2 Pat LJR (SC) 181. !t is atso significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02-06-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligib!e for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate retief. (7) In view of above, 1 do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge