1- Challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner vide orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 dated 25.10.2007 and 30.7.2007 respectively, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter was kept pending by the Department and now on the ground of non-entitlement of the petitioner after the period of seven years, as per the policy existing, the claim is rejected, which is unsustainable.
2- Petitioner's father Late Shri Jagdish Chandra Yadav was working as a Revenue Inspector in Bhopal, he died in harness on 16.7.1997. His mother filed an application seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner on 14.10.1997. Petitioner was a minor at that point of time and, therefore, could not be granted appointment. It was only in the year 1998 that is on 3.8.1998, that the petitioner became a major. Thereafter, his mother again submitted an application seeking appointment. The petitioner wanted appointment on the post of Patwari and as vacant posts were not available, matter was kept under consideration before various departments and finally when it was taken up for consideration on 20.12.2005, it was found that the petitioner does not fulfil the requisite qualification, he does not have the appropriate certificate of passing the Computer Technology Examination from a recognized university, the certificates produced by him is not recognized, therefore, his claim was rejected by saying that after seven years of his father's death he is not entitled to claim appointment.
3- Shri Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that on 16.7.97, after petitioner's father expired his mother submitted the application on 14.10.97, on 19.1.98 it was informed that petitioner is a minor and, therefore, the application could not be considered. On 5.8.98, after the petitioner attained majority the application was again submitted. On 2.1.99, certain information were called from the Tehsildar and after these information were submitted on 15.1.99, the matter was forwarded to the Commissioner Land Records, Gwalior on 27.2.99. The Commissioner forwarded the matter to Collector Bhopal for seeking further information and documents. These were submitted on 19.8.99. Then the matter was again sent back to Gwalior. Thereafter, the matter was kept pending. In the year 2001, and all of a sudden after five years the impugned order is passed. Interalia contending that the respondents have kept the matter pending all this period and, therefore, the claim should have been considered as per the policy that was existing at the time of submission of the application and the application could not be rejected on the basis of the policy that came into force at the time of consideration, Shri Hemant Shrivastava prays for interference into the matter.
4- Inviting my attention to certain observations made in paragraph 32 of a Full Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of Bank of Maharashtra and another v. Manoj Kumar Dehariya and another, 2010 (4) MPHT 18, it is argued by Shri Hemant Shrivastava that this is a case where the matter was kept pending for a long period by the Department and now the Department cannot reject it on the ground that after seven years as per the current policy, which was in vogue at the time of consideration, petitioner is not entitled to consideration.
5- Placing reliance on the same Full Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of Manoj Kumar Dehariya (supra), Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, points out that as per the current policy petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as petitioner's father expired more than seven years back. That apart, petitioner is not qualified for appointment on the post of Patwari, in view of the computer proficiency certificate being issued by a non- recognized institute. Accordingly, on these grounds respondents resist the claim of the petitioner.
6- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, from the records it is clear that the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on two grounds. The first ground is that as per the current policy, after a period of seven years of death of the employee concerned, the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. The second ground is that the certificate with regard to passing of the computer qualification is not by a recognized university. Petitioner contends that the matter was kept pending by the Department for more than five years and, therefore, on the basis of death having taken place seven years back, claim could not be rejected.
7- The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Manoj Kumar Dehariya (supra), has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested legal right. It is a benefit granted dehors the normal rules of appointment and, therefore, consideration as per the policy existing at the time of consideration of the application will be applicable. If the said principle is applied, the case of the petitioner is rightly rejected because as per the policy presently in vogue, after seven years of death of the employee, legal heir's are not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. Even if the contention of the petitioner to the extent that the application was kept pending deliberately for five years is taken note of, it would be seen that this contention is also not correct. After the petitioner submitted the application on 5.8.98, certain information were sought for and after getting all the information the claim for appointment on the post of Patwari was forwarded on 7.1.2000. However, on 8.3.2000 the State Government looking to its financial condition imposed a complete ban on appointments to be made on compassionate basis and, therefore, on 8.3.2000 petitioner was informed that in view of the circular of the State Government dated 14.1.2000, compassionate appointment could not be granted. It was only after the ban was lifted that petitioner's case was considered and by that time the position had changed and even when the petitioner's case was considered on merits it was found that he was not entitled for appointment in view of his ineligibility due to the certificate being from a non recognized institute.
8- Compassionate appointment, it is well settled principle of law, is granted to tide over the financial crisis of the family and after a period of more than 12 yeas, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed. In the present case, petitioner's father died in the year 1997, more than 13 years have passed, and now petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment. Even on examination of the matter on merits, respondents have found that compassionate appointment cannot be granted for the reasons indicated hereinabove. Evaluating the claim of the petitioner in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar 1996(1) SCC 301; Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, 2007(1) SCC 192; State of Jammu Kashmir and Others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, 2006(5) SCC 766; and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanchedi Lal Ghasita v. Union of India and others, 2002(4) MPHT 405, and taking note of the law laid down by the Full Bench, in the case of Manoj Kumar Dehariya (supra), I am of the considered view that it is not a case where the respondents have deliberately kept the matter pending for any unjust cause or in an unjustified manner. On the contrary, there are sufficient grounds to indicate that the claim of the petitioner has been properly considered and rejected.
9- Accordingly, finding no merit in the claim made by the petitioner warranting interference, the petition is dismissed.