Digvijay Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Digvijay Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 25, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042902

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1042902
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 25, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Digvijay Singh

Advocate Shri. Rajendra Pandey

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....been rejected pursuant to the directions issued by this court in w.p.no.1080/13 dated 23.01.2013, by impugned order dated 19.02.2013. it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents/authorities have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision for making compassionate appointment in respect of the secretary of gram panchayat under the provisions of the m.p.panchayat service (gram panchayat secretary recruitment and conditions of service) rules, 2011 (for short “the rules, 2011”.) totally ignoring the provisions of sub rule (6) of rule 6 of the rules, 2011 and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner's father was an employee of the gram panchayat and there is no policy framed by the state government for the purposes of giving compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee of the gram panchayat which has been placed before this court or pointed out in the present petition. quite apart from the above sub rule (6) of rule 6 of the rules, 2011 which has been relied upon by the petitioner has also no relevance to the present case as the same only provides for releasing ex-gratia and other dues of the deceased panchayat secretary to the nominated dependent member of the family and has nothing to do with the compassionate appointment. in view of the aforesaid, i do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this court. the petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed. ( r.s.jha ) judge msp

Full Judgment

W.P.No.11945/2013 (Digvijay Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.25.07.2013 Heard Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's father died on 20.10.2012 while working as Panchayat Secretary and thereafter the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment on 01.11.2012 and 31.12.2012 which has been rejected pursuant to the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.1080/13 dated 23.01.2013, by impugned order dated 19.02.2013.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents/authorities have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision for making compassionate appointment in respect of the Secretary of Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the M.P.Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 (for short “the Rules, 2011”.) totally ignoring the provisions of sub rule (6) of Rule 6 of the rules, 2011 and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner's father was an employee of the Gram Panchayat and there is no policy framed by the State Government for the purposes of giving compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee of the Gram Panchayat which has been placed before this court or pointed out in the present petition.

Quite apart from the above sub rule (6) of Rule 6 of the rules, 2011 which has been relied upon by the petitioner has also no relevance to the present case as the same only provides for releasing ex-gratia and other dues of the deceased Panchayat Secretary to the nominated dependent member of the family and has nothing to do with the compassionate appointment.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this court.

The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.

( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE msp

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Digvijay Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education