The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has quashed an order rejecting a plea for compassionate appointment, ruling that the cancellation of a sibling’s earlier appointment due to a criminal record does not debar another eligible dependent from seeking employment. The Court held that the authorities failed to appreciate the distinction between the “grant” and “cancellation” of an appointment.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai allowed the writ petition filed by the daughter of a deceased government employee, directing the Competent Authority to reconsider her application strictly in accordance with the policy.
Case Background
The petitioner, Priyanka Pandey, approached the High Court challenging the communication dated October 30, 2023, issued by the respondents. This order had rejected her claim for compassionate appointment on the grounds of ineligibility under Clauses 3, 13.1, and 13.2 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated August 18, 2008.
The petitioner’s father, Late Shri Sitaram Pandey, was a Revenue Inspector who died in harness on December 10, 2010. Following his death, the petitioner’s brother applied for compassionate appointment in January 2011. He was selected for the post of Patwari and underwent training starting July 1, 2014.
However, during subsequent police verification, it was revealed that the brother had been fined Rs. 100 in two cases under Section 13 of the Gambling Act in 2008 and 2009. Consequently, his candidature was rejected on January 8, 2015.
The petitioner’s mother subsequently submitted an application on October 1, 2016, seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner (the daughter). The respondents rejected this application in 2023, citing the seven-year limitation period and the policy rule that appointment once granted cannot be transferred or granted again.
Arguments
Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the rejection was arbitrary and contrary to the policy. He contended that the family remained in penury after the death of the sole breadwinner.
The counsel emphasized that the petitioner’s brother was “never appointed” in the true sense, as his candidature was rejected after police verification. Therefore, Clauses 13.1 (bar on re-appointment) and 13.2 (bar on transfer of appointment) were not applicable. He further argued that the delay was attributable to the respondents and the pendency of legal proceedings regarding the brother’s case.
Ms. Swati Ukhale, the Government Advocate for the State, opposed the petition. She submitted that compassionate appointment was already considered and granted to the petitioner’s brother, and the subsequent situation arose due to his own conduct. She argued that under the policy, once an appointment is granted to one family member, it cannot be transferred to another.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai examined the records and the specific clauses of the policy dated August 18, 2008.
The Court noted that the initial application by the brother was made well within the seven-year stipulated period. Furthermore, the mother’s application for the petitioner on October 1, 2016, was also within seven years of the employee’s death (December 10, 2010). Thus, the Court found that the requirement of Clause 3 was satisfied.
Addressing the respondents’ reliance on Clauses 13.1 and 13.2, the Court observed that these clauses apply only when an appointment has been validly availed. Clause 13.1 prohibits re-appointment after one has been granted, and Clause 13.2 prohibits transferring an appointment to another person.
The Court held:
“Once the Compassionate Appointment of the petitioner’s brother stood cancelled, it necessarily follows that no member of the family of the deceased employee was ultimately appointed on compassionate grounds. Consequently, the application of Clauses 13.1 and 13.2 of the policy is wholly misconceived.”
The Court further pointed out a procedural lapse by the respondents. Referring to Clause 13.3, which mandates character verification before appointment, the Court noted:
“In the facts of the present case, the Authorities, despite having ample opportunity, did not conclude the character verification process before appointing and deputing the petitioner’s brother for training. The cancellation of his Compassionate Appointment was effected only subsequently. Therefore, the delay and procedural lapse are clearly attributable to the respondents themselves and not to the petitioner or her family.”
The Court stated that the rejection proceeded on an “erroneous assumption that Compassionate Appointment had already been availed by the family,” which was factually incorrect as the appointment was cancelled.
The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court decision in The State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. (2023) regarding the principles governing compassionate appointment, emphasizing that the object is to enable the family to tide over sudden financial crises.
Decision
The High Court quashed the impugned order dated October 30, 2023.
“The Competent Authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for Compassionate Appointment strictly in accordance with the policy dated 18/08/2008 and in light of the observations made hereinabove,” the Court ordered.
The respondents have been directed to ensure compliance within 60 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Case Details
Case Title: Priyanka Pandey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 31332 of 2023
Coram: Justice Jai Kumar Pilla
