Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. allowed a writ petition directing the respondents to pay costs for the delay in compassionate employment.
The case of the writ petitioner is that his father, who was working as an Assistant Veterinary Officer died in harness on 08-12-2000. The petitioner had made an application for grant of compassionate appointment. He was granted a contractual appointment vide order dated 26-06-2002 as Samvida Shala Shikshak Varga-II. The appointment was for a period of three years. Thereafter, by the order dated 26-11-2002, merely after a period of five months, the appointment was cancelled on the ground that the said post was not available. Thereafter, he made several representations to the respondents, but nothing came out of it. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed after the Single Judge had dismissed the petition.
Counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order was passed in the year 2002 and the petition was filed in the year 2014. Hence, it has to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. It was further contended that since as on the date of death of the petitioner’s father, no post was vacant in the regular establishment, he was granted the appointment on contract basis. Thereafter, it was cancelled, since no such post was vacant.
The Court heard the arguments and was of the view that contentions of the State cannot be accepted. The Court further explained that appointment on compassionate grounds is an appointment to a regular post. Therefore, all consequences will follow. An appointment based on contract would entail the consequences that arise out of a contractual appointment. The rules do not permit substitution of an appointment on compassionate grounds through contractual appointment. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on contractual ground is illegal. Even assuming the posts were not available that does not give a right to the respondents to convert an appointment on compassionate grounds on contractual basis.
The Court further opined that the delay if any is to be held against the respondents and not against the petitioner. The Court allowing the petition held that the ends of justice will be met by directing the respondents to pay costs to him. Following directions were issue:
(a) The respondent No.3 is directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds to one of the three posts which the respondents claim are vacant. The same to be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(b) The respondents are directed to pay costs in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) to the appellant jointly and severely within a period of eight weeks.
[Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Appeal No. 977 of 2021, decided on 12-07-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr Ram Narayan Tiwari, Advocate, for the appellant;
Mr S.S Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents.
*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
