6^^ 1^ o ^ BEFORE THE' M.P.STATE. ArKTNISTRATr\/E TRIBUNAL AT JABALPUR ^ APPLIGANT KESPONDENTS 0»A.NO« OP 1997 Vindd Sharma S/o Late Sbr-i. Rosbanlal Sharma aged about 22 yrs resldent of Behind Kosa Centre, Kzunharpara Jagdalpur Distt»Bastar(M.P.) VERSUS ; 1» State of Madhya Pradesh throyghs The Secretary Pancbayat &-Social Welfare Go^rt. Qf M.P.Bhopal. 2. The Director Pane^ayat & soc-tal Welfare Govt.of M.P.,Bhopal 3. Tbe Deputy Director Pancbayat & Social Welfare, Jagdalpur, Dlstt»Bastar(M,P*) 4. The Dlstrlct Panehayat & Social Welfare Offlcer.Jagdalpur,Bastar(MP ) 5» Tbe Block Development Officer, Bhalram Garh Block, Bbalram'Garh Distt.Bastar(M.P.) APPI.ICATION U/S 19 OF-THE &DMINISTBATIVE TRIBUI'I&I, AQT^1985 lll;-lfl!11!: ^SSB il \ s': •;i;-1 r w>\» HIQH COURT OF CHtATTIBGARH : BIiASPXXR SIBQLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI M&BiNDRA BSOHAH SHRiV^TAVA. RSSPONDBNTS Wrifc Pefcitiott (8) No. 1S4S/2005 Viuod Sharnia Versus State ofM.P. and 4 othei-s Appearance: Shri Prafiiil Bharat, c-ounsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advcrcate for fhe State. ORAL ORDBR (Passed ou 13tAprU 2010) By this petitiou, fhe petitioner has assailed legality and validily of order dated .19/02/1986 (Annexure A-8) by which sen/lces of his father were terittuiated. The petitioner has also chailenged order dated 31/01/1996 (Aiiuexure A-7) by whlch his application for graat of compassioiiate appolntment has been rejected. 2. Pacts, briefly stated, are that tfae father ofthc petitioaer was appolated as Gram Saliayak vide order dated 1/03/1979 (Annexure A-l) pursuaiit to which Iie subimtted Iiis joining on 3/3/1979 (Annexure A-2). Due to sickuess, petitioner's father applied for graat ofearned leave frojii 7/7/81 to 31/7/81. After rccoveiy, petiuonex''s fafher subuutted lus jolalag to respondeut No.5 who dlrected him to report before respoudeat No.4 whereupon respondent No.4 aUowed petitioners fatner to join servlce aud posted 1iirn at Bhairauigarh District Bastar vide order dated 24/04/82. Thereafter, iiespondent No.5 aBowed father offhe petitioiier tojoui his duties. Respondeut No.5 vide meiao dated 3/5/82 (Aanexure A-4$ sought 4^ ~^^ -2- iastructions floiu respoudeut No.4 regardlng regularizatioa of perlod of absence. It is the case of fhe petitioner that wlule la seivice nis fathef died oii 20/10/85 as the petitioner was luinor at the time of death of liis father, after attaining iuajority, aa applicatiou for grant of oompassionate appoluttaent was made vide Aanexure A-6. In i-esponse to the said application, an impugued order dated 31/01/96 was passed by respondent No.3 rejectuig application 011 the gnouiid that the petitioner'a fafher was teuainated fl-om servlce w.e.f. January 1981, vlde order dated 19/02/86. On representation inade on behalf of the petitioner, Additional Collector, Bastar vide Itis mem.o (Auuexuiie A-8) iafoitued fhat fbe petitioner could uot be granted coiupassionate appoiatment as hls fafher was tenaiuated from tus services. 3. Learned counsel for tbe petitioner subjmlts that the rejection of ffae representation on ffae grpuud fhat the father ofthe petitioner was teriuiuated vlde order dated 19/02/86 is clearly JIlegal iu as inuch as ffae fafber offue petitioiier died ou 20/10/ 1985 whereas the order of tei'uuuation was passed on 19/02/1986 w.e.f. Jaauaiy 1981. It is suumitted fhat as death had tekeu place wliile he was In service, the petitioner was Uable to be consMered fer compassioaate appointment AssaiUu^- the order of termiaation dated 19/02/86, it has been subinitted fhat such an oxder was passed wifhout giviag proper oppoitunity to the father of the petitioner aud wlthout holdlng anv inquuy. It Is subinltted fhat such course of action was imperiiussible under law as period of long absenc-e could aot be made a gmiinS. for tenniuattou froiu the service. It is also lu^ed tfaat after the death offather of fhe petitioner, no order ofternunation coiild be passed. 4. Per contra, submlsslon of the learned coiuisel lor fespouuents is fhat fhe instaat petition has been ffled for grant ofcojnpassionate appoiutment to -3- which the petitioner is not eutiUed because the serviees of petitioner's fa.ther were terminated aad therefore no consiuei'ation for compassiouate appoiutrueut was made out. it is also argued fhat the petttioner coiild not claim compassionate appointmeut 16 years after the death ofhis father. The deafh has taken place on 20/ 1G/' 1985 whereas applicatiou for compassionate appoiatment was ffled iu fhe year 1996. It is also subuutted fhat even fh.ough petitioner attained majority in the year 1992 as per his owa statement, he approached for grant of compassiouate appoiatuieat after almost 4 yeais and fherefore on this ground alonc petitioner is i-tot eutMed to compassionate appolatuient as fhe very object and purpose of gi'autlag compassionate appoiatmeiit to provide iinnicdiate r^Uef and succor to the family of ttie deceased employee. 5. In the petition, petitiojaer has stated himself to be 22 years of age in the year 1997 when ttus petitiou was ffled. Thus, accordiBg to fhe petitioner himself he bad attauied majorily ia the year 1992, fhere is B.O explaaatioa what so ever by the petitioner as to why he did not apply for grant of coiupassiouate appointmeiit. In fhe entire petitioa, ttiere is ao avei'uxcnt that the oixler of termination dated 19/02/86 camie to the notice aud kaowledge of the petitioner only upon. rejection of representation vj.de ordef dated 31/1/96. lufact, order dated 31/1/96 was addressed to fhe mother of the petitioner aad uot to the petitioner him.self. There 1s ao inaterial on record to •show that at the time of deatu of petitioner's father, except petitioner, thcre was uo ottier eligible xneiaber includiag his motlier to seek compassionate appointment. There is no explauation what so ever as to why the order of termination passed on 19/02/86 was not chatleuged earlier. Petitiouer has aot eveu bi1ought on recoxd ffae relevant policy of coinpasslojaate appoiaUuent applicable at the relevaut time to demonstiate that oa the date of death of s fafher of fhe petitioner, as fhere was no eUgible meiuber in flie fauuly to seek compassionate appoiatnaent aad uuder tbe policy he alone w^ cntitlcd to apply for coinpassionate appoiutBien.t,afi.er deafu of his fafher. Eveu after attaiuing fliajorily, uo steps were taken for almost 4 years aud application for compassionate appoiatuientwas made for the first tuue la fhe year 1996. This Court is not iucliued to graat any benefit to the petitkiner inalaly for fhe f.eason that when petitioner was minor, it has not beeu demonstiated that his raother was aot el^ible to take up compassionate appointruent or that uuder fhe policy, petitiouer was entitled to claim after attainlag Utajorily. Further, even after attaiaiag niajority, delay iu approaching authorities to seek compassionate appointment 1s fatal to fhe case ofthe petitioner. 6. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar aud ofhers 2001(1) M.P.H.T. page 1, Supreme Court held - ' We are unatole to agree wltfa the subinisslons of fhe learned senior counsel for the petitioiier. Thia Couit has held in a nuiaber of cases fhat compassionate appointment 1s inteuded to enable the famlly of fhe deceased eiaployee to tide over sudden crisis resultkLg due to deatii of the bread earner who had left the fauuly in penuiy and wifhout auy ineans of livelihood. In fact such a vlew has beeu expressed ia tfae veiy decision cited by the petitioner in Director qf Eduoatioii, Vs. PusS'ipertdra Kunwr (supra). it is also sign ificaat to notice fhat on. the date when fhe first application was maue by the petitioner on 2-6-88, fhe petitioiier was a miuor axid was not ~ eligible for appointmen.t. T'his is conceded by the petitioner. There canuot be reservation ofa vacancy tUl such tune as the petltioner becom.es a major after a nuniber ofyears, unless there is souie specific provisions. The veiy basis of coinpassiouate appoiutment is to see fhat the famiiy gets iuuuediate relief. " lllpl«=*c -5- 7. Iu view of the above, setUed legal position, petitioner is aot entitled to aay relief ia fhe petition. The petition 1s accordingly dismissed. There shaU be no order as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge