1. Challenging the order dated 24/08/2000 passed by respondent No.2 and communicated to the petitioner by respondent No.4 on 07/10/2000, petitioner has filed this writ petition. By the aforesaid orders, claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
2. Petitioner's father, Late Madanlal Malviya, was working as Assistant Accountant in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain, he died in harness on 05/09/1999. It is the case of petitioner that he made an application seeking compassionate appointment to the District and Session Judge, Ujjain vide annexure A-3 on 09/09/1999, various correspondence took place and finally petitioner was directed to obtain succession certificate. According to petitioner, succession certificate was granted to him by competent court on 27/12/2000 vide annexure A-8 and thereafter he again filed an application for compassionate appointment, but the same having been rejected by the impugned order, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. It is stated that under similar circumstances, compassionate appointment is granted to respondent No.5, whose father Late Ravishanker Sharma has also died in harness while working in establishment of District and Session Judge, Ujjain, but in the case of petitioner, similar benefit is denied. Accordingly, contending that petitioner having been denied benefit of compassionate appointment on improper consideration, his claim has been rejected, even though he has obtained succession certificate, this petition has been filed.
4. On notice being issued, respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 have filed reply and it is pointed out by respondents that compassionate appointment in the establishment is granted in accordance to circular annexure R-1 dated 17/08/1995. To claim compassionate appointment it is stated that the incumbent has to be a member of the family and for the purpose of compassionate appointment 'Member of the Family' is defined in clause XX of the circular in following manner :
XX For the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground, the expression "Members of the Family" shall mean wife/husband, legitimate children (wherein included the step son or daughter) and were dependent on the deceased Government Servant)
5. According to the respondents, petitioner is not the legitimate son of Late Madanlal Malviya. Respondents have pointed out that Late Madanlal Malviya during his life time, while his first wife and children were already alive, was staying with another women and petitioner is born out of this relationship between Madanlal Malviya and second woman. Accordingly, contending that petitioner is not a legitimate child of Madanlal Malviya, respondents resist his claim. It is stated that, when rival claims were made by both wives of Madanlal Malviya and their children for the purpose of settling financial claims of deceased employee, respondents directed the rival contenders to produce the succession certificate and based on the succession certificate the settlement of dues have been made, but the same will not give any right to petitioner to claim compassionate appointment, as the succession certificate is only for the purpose of settling monetary dues and not for grant of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, respondents contend that compassionate appointment can be granted only if criterias laid down in circular annexure R-1 is fulfilled and as the said criteria is not fulfilled by the petitioner, it is stated that petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the facts that has come on record it is clear that under the circular annexure R-1 dated 17/08/1995, the definition of "Family Members" clearly stipulates that it is only the wife/husband and the legitimate children including step son or daughter, who come within the purview of the "Member of the Family". So far as present petitioner is concerned, records indicate that he is born out of relationship between Madanlal Malviya and the petitioner's mother, even though at that point of time the first wife and children of Madanlal Malviya were alive. In that view of matter, I am of the considered view that petitioner does not fulfill the requirement to come within the purview of the expression "Member of the Family", as envisaged in circular annexure R-1 and on such consideration, respondents have not committed any error warranting interference now in this proceedings.
7. Grant of compassionate appointment is based on Schemes and Rules formulated in an establishment. Compassionate appointment is an appointment contrary to the recruitment rules and is, therefore, granted strictly in accordance to the scheme formulated by an particular establishment. In the present case, petitioner does not fulfill the criteria laid down in the scheme, as contained in annexure R-1 and, therefore, in the absence of right being available to the petitioner in accordance to the scheme, a mandamus cannot be issued for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner contrary to the scheme applicable in the respondents' establishment.
8. As far as comparison on the ground of parity with Shri Ravishanker Sharma, respondent No.5, is concerned, the respondent No.5 has been granted compassionate appointment as he fulfills all the requisite criterias laid down under circular annexure R-1 dated 17/08/1995 and his case is entirely different from that of petitioner. Each case of compassionate appointment has to be evaluated in its own merit after taking note of the requirement of the scheme/circular dated 17/08/1995 and once it is found that the petitioner does not fulfill the requirement under the scheme, mainly because respondent No.5 is granted appointment, similar benefit cannot be extended to petitioner until and unless parity in all respect is established. That being so, petitioner cannot compare his case with that of respondent No.5.
9. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the grounds raised the petition is dismissed.