STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. Vs. AMIT SHRIVAS
LAWS(SC)-2020-9-43
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 29,2020

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Amit Shrivas Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

YOGESHBHAI BABUBHAI DHUMADIYA VS. BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SUJIT DALUI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
SATADRU ADHIKARY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
FATMABAI ABDUL SUMRA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-573] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIBEN BALABHAI CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-743] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY) VS. BHEEMESH ALIAS BHEEMAPPA [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-70] [REFERRED TO]
V.MALLIKARJUNA VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(APH)-2021-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
RATHOD FATHEBEN AMRUTSINH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-1392] [REFERRED TO]
AMOL SAHEBRAO SURYAWANSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-124] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2021-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
GAGNDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2021-2-92] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK DHAKAD VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
MALAYA NANDA SETHY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-106] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASHBEN BHARATBHAI BHAVSAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-1102] [REFERRED TO]
KONGKON MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
SUJIT DALUI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-6-86] [REFERRED TO]
GAURIBEN HARGOVINBHAI VAGHELA VS. SECRETARY, NARMADA AND WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-1072] [REFERRED TO]
MANJULABEN BALUBHAI BHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-1286] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT MALVIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. ASHISH AWASTHI [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-36] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL.J. - (1.)The respondent raises a claim of entitlement to compassionate appointment on account of the demise of his father late Shri Ranglal Shrivas, who was working as a Driver in the Tribal Welfare Department, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, since 6.6.1984 till he passed away on 11.12.2009, i.e., over a period of almost 23 years.
(2.)The claim of the respondent was predicated on the nature of employment of his late father, who was initially appointed as a work-charged employee. On 12.3.1987, he was made permanent and was paid salary at a regular pay-scale. The benefits of revision of pay and krammonati (promotion) were also extended to him from time to time. On the demise of late Shri Ranglal Shrivas, he left behind an ailing wife, a son (i.e., the respondent herein) and three daughters and is stated to have been the sole breadwinner for his family. The family, thus, faced undue economic hardship. A Pension Payment Order (TPO') under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Pension Rules, 1976 was issued in favour of the family on account of his having worked from 12.3.1987 to 11.12.2009 on the basis of his last pay-scale and grade pay. In view of the economic hardship, the respondent filed an application seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment.
(3.)The request of compassionate appointment was, however, rejected by the third appellant vide order dated 19.8.2010. Reliance was placed on the Policy in force for compassionate appointment dated 18.8.2008, issued by the General Administration Department Ministry, Madhya Pradesh Government. This policy pertains to when a Government servant dies while in service, and if such an employee is earning a salary from the work-charge/contingency fund at the time of his/her demise, then there was no provision for the grant of such appointment. In this behalf, reliance was placed on Clause 12.1 of the Policy, which provided for a compassionate grant of Rs.1,00,000/- to the nominated dependent of such an employee, and in this case, the same was sanctioned to the wife of the deceased. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant clause as under:
12. Provisions for work charge/contingency and daily wager employees

12.1 When employees receiving salary from work charge/contingency fund and daily wager employee die, they would not be eligible for the compassionate appointment; however Rs.1 lakh in one installment in the name of compassionate grant shall be given to the dependent member of the family nominated by them. The amount of gratuity shall not be included in it. The payment of this amount shall be given from the salary head under the head of work charge/contingency of the concerned department."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.