Merely Mentioning Person's Name In Official Documents As Nominee Is Of No Avail To Claim Compassionate Appointment: MP High Court

The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High court recently held that merely mentioning a person's name in departmental documents as a nominee does not automatically confer a right to claim compassionate appointment on account of death of deceased employee.A single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “…merely mentioning of the name of any person in the official documents referring the same to be the nominee of the employee is of no avail to such person to claim compassionate appointment on account of death of deceased employee in the face of a rival claim by the other family members of the deceased employee, as the compassionate appointment is provided under a policy formulated by the State Government and such policy would never promote the polygamy.”In the present case, the petitioner is the son of a deceased Class-III employee, a Hand Pump Technician in the Public Health & Engineering Department, Rajgarh who died in harness during the Covid-19 pandemic period. After the death of his father Hiralal, the petitioner being the son of the deceased Hiralal applied for compassionate appointment which was rejected by the respondent (Public Health Engineering Department) stating that there is nothing on record to prove that the mother of the petitioner was the wife of the deceased Hiralal, as in his nomination form, the name of Shanti Bai was not mentioned, neither there is any reference that the petitioner is his son.In the present petition, the aforesaid order has been challenged and on account of appointment of respondent no.6 (Son of second wife) on compassionate basis, by way of amendment, the second wife of the deceased and his children were also arrayed as respondents. The petitioner contends that he is the son of the first wife of the deceased Hiralal, who was Shanti Bai, and without taking any divorce from his mother, deceased Hiralal solemnized another marriage with Usha Bai, whose son Yuvraj/respondent no.6 has been subsequently granted the compassionate appointment. The counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of the court that on an application for maintenance u/s.125 of Cr.P.C. in 2007, Shanti bai, the first wife of Hiralal and his son-Praveen, have been awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- and 500/ respectively.Counsel for the respondents No. 4/second wife & 6/second wife's son contended that in judgment passed by the Trial Court judge, it has been observed that in the year 1992, the marriage/Natra of Shantibai was solemnized with Hiralal. However, in the year 1994, she was driven out of the house by Hiralal, and thereafter, he solemnized the marriage with Ushabai and started with living with her, and the court also took note of the reply filed by Hiralal that he has not married to Shantibai, and entered into Natra only. It was further submitted that Ushabai was validly married wife of Hiralal, and in all the certificates of the respondent no.6, the name of his father is mentioned as Hiralal. Moreover, in the nomination form of the deceased, Ushabai's name was mentioned as his nominee.The counsel for the respondent/State also submitted that in all the Departmental documents Ushabai is mentioned as the wife of the deceased Hiralal, therefore, they have not erred in granting compassionate appointment to her son/respondent no.6.After considering the above submissions, the court observed, “Even if Hiralal belonged to Scheduled Tribe in which, they also have tradition of Natra also, in which, a woman resides with a man under contract, but, undoubtedly the petitioner was born out of a relationship between Hiralal Kochak and his first wife Shantibai, and thus, the petitioner was the legitimate son of Hiralal Kochak.”The court placed reliance on Khursheed Ahmad Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others wherein Supreme Court had clearly deprecated the practice of polygamy holding that it is not an integral part of religion, and also that it is necessary for a person to take permission to solemnize second marriage if their custom permits the same. The court further said, “…there is nothing on record to suggest that Hiralal Kochak divorced his first wife Shantibai before contracting second marriage, or that he had informed the Government about contracting the second marriage, if his customs permit the same.”Thus, the court remarked that merely mentioning the name of any person in the official documents as the nominee of the employee is of no avail to such person to claim compassionate appointment on account of death of deceased employee.“…petitioner has made out a case for compassionate appointment being the son of Hiralal Kochak, born out of his first wife and the fact that Hiralal though mentioned the name of his second wife Ushabai and his son in all his service record, but did not inform his department regarding the factum of his second marriage with Ushabai which was a condition necessary as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Khursheed Ahmad Khan (supra).”, ...

Merely Mentioning Person's Name In Official Documents As Nominee Is Of No Avail To Claim Compassionate Appointment: MP High Court

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anukriti Mishra

Merely Mentioning Person's Name In Official Documents As Nominee Is Of No Avail To Claim Compassionate Appointment: MP High Court

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers