^ t^^n^4-/o$ BEFC^E INE MoP«STAl£_J^BK2MSTBATIVETaiBll^L J^SM^B. ©aiQIN^L^PUGA1I©NN0< ©F1998. APPLICANT ^* BAMSmaiKH CllOi.JBEY, Son ef Jagfdish Gh@rt>ey> aged 30 years»Assis-bant Teaeher > Piifflaxy gchoot Khars©ta, Tahsil Pratap Pyr, Bistiict aAaQiv^» (M«I><). yeasvs aESPONOENTS *^ l, ihe State of Nadhya Pradesh Threygh SecrStaiy, Schoel Bdycati®n@©paytBieBtb, B^^AL, N.P. 2. Collector(A»J»K.)ftaigarh, ©istriet aa^garfey M»P* 3. Ghief Execvtive ©fficer, District Pancbayat & Ex-0fficio> t^per SanGhalak» Pubiic Bdueati on, aatgaxfe, M»P» 4» Deputy Direetor (Bdaeation), ©haramjaigarh, ©istrietaatgarh,M«P< T^IBIJN&LS AGT. 1^5. ^ •fc-, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR :i SJnale Bench: Hon'bleShri Maniridra Nohan Shrivastava. J. APPLICANT RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1724^2005 Ram Sharikh Choubey Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Present- Shri I. P. Singh, lcounset for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on this 22"a day of March, 2010) With the consent of learned counsel forthe parties, the petition is heard finaily. C2) The petitioner has fjled this petitionjaggrieved by the order dated 28-07-1998 (Annexure A-6), by which, his services have been terminated. (3) Relevant facts are that one R. D. Mishra, a government servant died on 31-10-1988 while in service leavirig behind two daughters and widow. Both the daughters are married. Younger Son-in-law, hysband of Anju Devi, the present petitjoner was nominated by the widow ofthe deceased government servant for appojntment on compassionate basis which Jed to hjs appomtment on compassionate basis vide order dated 02-08-1995 (Annexure A-1). Thereafter on 04-03-1998 and 27-04-1998 O^nnexure A-3 & A-4),inotices were issuedto the petitioner to place on record relevant details/documents in support of his claim of compassionate appointment stating that his appointment was not in accordance with rules. Though. replywas filed bythe petitioner on 19-05-1998 (Annexure A-5), impugned order of termination from service was passed on 28- 07-1998 (Annexure A-6). The said order mentjoned thatithe jappointment of the petitioner was in contravention ofcjrcular dated 10-09-1995 (Annexure A-7). (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned action of termination from services was illegal, arbitrary and in Viojation of prindples of ^ L- c">~v natural justice. His further submission is that he was apppinted in semce on compassionate ground vide order dated 02-08-1995 whereas subsequent circular dated 10-09-1995 was obviously after appointment, and therefore, the same couid not be applied retrospectively. (5) Per contra. learned State counsel submite that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment in view of the policy of compassionate appointment contained in circular dated 10-06-1994 (Annexure A-9). His submission is that in view of the provision conteined in ctause-17 of circular dated 10-06-1994, nomination of a dose relative ofwidow is permissjble only in those cases where her major sons/daughters were notin a position to look after thejr mother and the widow herself is not in a position to take up government sen/ice. In the present case, it is argued, there were two major daughters of the deceased government employee, who were competent to look after their mother. Therefore, nomination ofson-in-law (husband ofyounger daughter) was not in the spirit of clause-17 of the goyernment policy dated 10-06-1994. This aspect has been subsequently darified vide another circular dated 10-09-1995 (Annexure A-7) and the petitioner's appointment was cancelled after giving him proper notice. (6) I have given my anxious consideration to rival contentions made by Searned counselfor the respective parties and perused the records. (7) From the impugned order dated 28-07-1998 (Annexure A-6), it is found that operative reason for termination of the appointment of the petjtioner and other persons was that those appointments are contrary to circular dated 10-09-1995. A perusal of drcular dated 10-09-1^5 (Annexure A-7) would show that clarification of earlier circular dated 10-06-1^4 was issued stating that the provision reiating to compassionate appointment to other relatives could not be granted where the son/daughter, dependante ofthe deceased are already in employment. It also clarifies that in case, there are no major sons or daughters, then on the nomination of the widow of the deceased government servant, compassionate appointment could be given to a nominated person. If the impugned order is read in the context of return which has been filed by the respondents, it is apparent that the termination of the petitioner is founded on the ground that as two major daughters were competent to look after their !'r- mother, widow of the deceased govemment ser/ant, it was incompetent for the widow to nominate her son-in-law for Gompassionate appointment. (8) A just, fair and logicaS reading of clause-17 pf circular dated 10-06-1994 (Annexure A-9) would reveal that if major son or daughter is not there and the widow herself is not competent, then:, in that case.widow will have a right to nominate a near relative for compassionate appointment. The purpose and object of such provjsion is to ensure that where there is nobody to look after the widow ofthe deceased government sen/ant and the widow herself is not competent to take-up employment, in such a situation, widow could take recourse to nominate any other relative, for her care. (9) The drcujar dated 10-06-1994 stipulated that if major son or daughter is not there to !ook afterthe widow and the widow herself is not competent to take- up employment, nomination could be done by the widow. The respondents have considered the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in view of the nomination made by the widow in his favour. It is not in dispute that both the daughters were married. Clause-17 of circular dated 10-06-1^4 does not exclude a circumstance where a major daughter is incapacitated from looking after her mother on account of her marriage. In these circumstances, the respondents granted compassionate appointment to thepetitioner who was nominated by his mother-in-law/widow of the deceased government sen/ant. This per se, could not be said to be in contravention of the policy dated 10-06-1994. The subsequent circular issued on 10-09-1^5 only sought to cSarify a sjtuation that where the sons/daughters/dependants in the family of the deceased govemment servant are already in employment, the benefit of compassionate appointment will not be available. (10) In my opinion, the compassionate appointment of the petitioner could not be said to be in violation of clarificatory circular dated 10-09-1995. It is not in dispute that on the date of death ofthe deceased :governmentservant, neither his two daughters nor his widow was in government employment. Other submissions which have been made by the learned counsel forthe petitioner to assail the validity ofthe impugned order of termination need not be gone into, in view of the finding which has been recorded by me, above. -^- (11) Con.sequently, the impugned order of term'mation dated 28-07-1998 (Annexure A-6) is declared illegal and is hereby setaside. As the petitioner was continujng in service by virtue of interim order datedOI-09-1^8, no further order regarding reinstatement is required to be passed. 1 Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrwastava Jude