The High Court directs authorities to reconsider Priyanka Pandey's application afresh, citing procedural delays and policy misinterpretation.
In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of Priyanka Pandey’s application for compassionate appointment, directing the competent authority to reevaluate her case in compliance with the Compassionate Appointment Policy of 2008. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, addresses the procedural delays and erroneous interpretation of policy clauses that led to the rejection of Pandey’s application by the State authorities.
Priyanka Pandey had approached the court challenging the decision of the Madhya Pradesh State authorities, which had denied her compassionate appointment following her father's death in 2010. The authorities had cited ineligibility under Clauses 3, 13.1, and 13.2 of the policy as the basis for their decision. However, the court found these grounds insufficient and flawed, particularly noting that no family member had been appointed under the compassionate policy due to procedural lapses by the authorities themselves.
The case dates back to the untimely demise of Pandey's father, who was serving as a Revenue Inspector. After his death, her brother applied for compassionate appointment and completed training for the post of Patwari. However, his application was later rejected due to a police verification report revealing past offenses under the Gambling Act. This rejection delayed Priyanka’s application, which was submitted by her mother, further complicating the family’s financial distress.
Justice Pillai emphasized the objective of compassionate appointments, which aim to provide immediate relief to families facing financial hardship due to the loss of a breadwinner. The court pointed out that the initial application made by Pandey’s brother was within the stipulated seven-year period, satisfying Clause 3 of the policy. Furthermore, since no family member was ultimately appointed, Clauses 13.1 and 13.2 were deemed irrelevant to Priyanka’s situation.
The court criticized the procedural delays and misinterpretation of the policy by the authorities, which led to the rejection of Priyanka’s application. It highlighted that the appointment on compassionate grounds is not a vested right but a measure to address urgent financial crises. Therefore, the authorities were directed to reconsider Priyanka’s application promptly.
This decision aligns with the precedent set by the Supreme Court of India in various cases emphasizing the need for immediacy and fairness in compassionate appointments. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment serves as a reminder to authorities to uphold the principles of justice and policy objectives, ensuring procedural compliance and timely relief for families in distress.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate Appointment - Application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on grounds of ineligibility under Clauses 3, 13.1, and 13.2 of the policy when no family member of the deceased employee has been ultimately appointed, and procedural delay is attributable to the authorities.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Compassionate Appointment Policy of 2008 Clauses 3, 13.1, and 13.2
Priyanka Pandey v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849009
