Full Judgment
W.P.No.11772/2013 Rajesh vs. M.P.S.E.B & ORS.1 23.07.2013 Heard Shri R.P.Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief.
The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner as it is stated that the petitioner's father who was working in the establishment of the respondents, died while in service on 29.6.2002.
It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment but it has not been considered and thereafter the respondent authorities have issued a list, Annexure P-6, in which the petitioner's name finds mention but he has not been given appointment on the ground that his qualifying certificate has been issued from Varanasi.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise the petitioner has not become eligible for compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy in that regard issued by the respondent authorities in the year 2013.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
From a perusal of the record, it is clear that after the death of the petitioner's father in the year 2002 the petitioner has not filed any application for compassionate appointment as no such application has been placed on record.
It is further clear that the W.P.No.11772/2013 Rajesh vs. M.P.S.E.B & ORS.2 document, Annexure P-6, that has been relied upon by the petitioner is the list of candidates which was published in the fourth phase of the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent authorities for making appointment of contractual Lineman and has nothing to do with making compassionate appointments.
That apart, the policy of the year 2013, on which reliance has been placed, clearly provides that the facility for appointment would be available only for a period of 7 years from the date of death of the employee and that no cases that had been rejected, disposed of or were pending as on 10.4.2012 shall be reopened or considered under the new policy.
In the circumstances it is clear that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria provided for making compassionate appointment not has he applied for the same and, therefore, the authorities have rightly not considered his claim.
The petition, filed by the petitioner, claiming compassionate appointment is accordingly dismissed as it is without any substance or merit.
( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-