35 Yrs Elapsed: MP High Court Refuses Compassionate Appointment, Says No Claim After Crisis Is Over

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld its decision of not granting compassionate appointment to a person after a lapse of 35 years, even though he was not to be blamed for the delay. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to assist the bereaved family in averting a financial crisis. However, in the case of the Appellant, that phase had already passed- Even though it cannot be said that the petitioner should be blamed for the long period of delay, however, the fact remains that for the last 35 years he has remained without a job. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and others Vs. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 299 has held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner. The same cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Facts of the case were the Appellant had sought for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the fact that his father had died in harness in the year 1987. He became major in the year 2003. Immediately thereafter, he filed an application before the authorities at Chhattisgarh. After reorganization of the State, the concerned authority fell within the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, his application was rejected. Aggrieved, he moved the Court challenging the rejection of his application. The Writ Court refused to grant relief to the Appellant on the ground that there was no reason as to how the compassionate appointment could be granted after a lapse of 35 years. He then preferred an appeal against the decision of the Writ Court. Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the observations of the Writ Court. Thus, it was held that since a period of 35 years had elapsed, it was not appropriate for the Court to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Case Title: SOMNATH SONWANI VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 230Click Here To Read/Download Order

35 Yrs Elapsed: MP High Court Refuses Compassionate Appointment, Says No Claim After Crisis Is Over

Zeeshan Thomas

Tags