MP HC | Application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered in light of the policy which is in force on the date of consideration of application

Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed a petition after considering the facts of the case and found that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The factual matrix of the instant case is that the father of the petitioner was an employee of Union Bank of India and he died in harness on 23-04-2002. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner had already put in more than five years of service in the Bank and was over 35 years old. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and he laid his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on 22-11-2006. The petitioner has filed petitions for a compassionate appointment two times and both were rejected, first time, under the policy of 2003 and the second time under the policy of 2007. 

The Court held that in the light of the Judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1187, it is clear that the application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered in the light of the policy which is in force on the date of consideration of the application. The Court observed that the above-mentioned aspect is an academic issue because both the policies, i.e. which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the first time and the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the second time, do not cover the case of the petitioner. As per the policy of 2003, which was in force at the time of consideration of the application for the first time, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment because he had laid his claim after the expiry of more than four years, whereas as per the policy which was in force on the date of consideration i.e. policy of 2007, of his application for the second time, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment on the ground that his father had already completed more than five years of service in the Bank and was above 30 years. 

In view of the above, the Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under any of the policies. [Deepak Sharma v. Union Bank of India, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 2664, decided on 04-04-2019]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.