Dipti Tiwari v. State Of M.P & Others

ORDER

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the order dated 01.02.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that in the family of the deceased employee one member is in Government/Corporation/Council's employment and, therefore, as per policy dated 18.8.2008, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is based on the ground that her elder brother who is in employment is living separately for about five years. There was no communication and relation between the petitioner and her brother and, therefore, she deserves compassionate appointment. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on 2012 (4) MPLJ 539 (Prakash Parmar v. Government of M.P).

2. The prayer is opposed by Mrs. Patankar, learned Government Advocate.

3. However, no arguments could be advanced to show that the judgment in Prakash Parmar (supra) will not apply in the present case. In Prakash Parmar, the claim for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that brother of the petitioner is in Government job. This Court considered the same circular dated 18.8.2008 and after considering the definition of family in Fundamental Rules and Medical Attendance Rules opined as under:-

“7. In the matter of Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh, AIR 1999 SC 551 word ‘dependents’ defined which includes besides wife and widow, dependent sons/daughters. In this case Hon. Apex Court has observed that the whole idea of the reservation is that those who are dependent for their survival on men who have lost their lives or became disabled in the service of the nation should not suffer. The public purpose of such reservation would be totally list if it were to be made available to those who are gainfully employed. There is no justification for construing the words ‘Dependants of ex serviceman’ in any manner other than that in which the appellant has construed them. This is accord with the reservation policy itself as shown by the quotation therefrom afforested.

8. In the matter of Ku. Priyanka Dixit v. State of M.P, WP No. 3250 of 2006 decided on 17th July, 2007 this Court has held that in terms of GAD Policy dated 20/08/01, brother who is living separately does not come within the meaning of expression ‘family’. It was further held by this Court that once the brother who was in the employment, is not residing along with the deceased and residing separately then it cannot be construed, that, one of the member of the family of the deceased was in employment.

9. In the order Annexure P/7 it is nowhere stated that Mukesh brother of the petitioner was dependent on the deceased, while the contention of the petitioner is that Mukesh is living separately with his family and is only a contractual teacher. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order Annexure P/7 is quashed. Petitioner is directed to submit fresh application before the competent Authority, wherein petitioner shall narrate full facts about the widow, marital and financial status of the petitioner and also the family and financial status of brother Mukesh. If such an application is filed along with copy of the order passed today, then the competent Authority shall decide the same keeping in view the definition of ‘family’ as mentioned in M.P Civil Services (medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, as the word ‘family’ is not defined in the policy of compassionate appointment, within a period of eight weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, this judgment is squarely applicable in the present case. Thus, the present petitioner deserves similar treatment.

5. Resultantly, impugned order Annexure P-1 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to submit fresh application with detailed facts for grant of compassionate appointment. In the event the said application is filed along with copy of this order, the competent authority shall decide the same keeping in view para 9 of the order passed by this Court in Prakash Parmar (supra).

6. Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner.