The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the compassionate appointment is provided under a policy formulated by the State Government and such policy would never promote the polygamy.

The Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, challenging the compassionate appointment of the son (Respondent) of his father’s second wife. The Court set aside the Respondent’s appointment and directed the State to consider Petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment as the legitimate son of the deceased employee.

A Single Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed that “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.

Advocate Hitesh Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate Bhagyashree Gupta appeared for the Respondents.

The Petitioner was the son of the first wife of the deceased employee, who was working as a Hand Pump Technician in the Public Health and Engineering Department. Following his father’s death, the Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. However, his application was rejected on the grounds that there was no record proving his relationship with the deceased. Subsequently, another son from the deceased’s second wife granted compassionate appointment.

The Petitioner challenged this decision, submitting that his mother’s marriage to the deceased had never been dissolved and that he was the legitimate son entitled to compassionate appointment.

The High Court took note of the proceedings initiated by the Petitioner’s mother under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the year 2007. “Thus, it is apparent even from the aforesaid decision that the deceased Hiralal Kochak started residing with Usha Bai either from 1992 or at the most from 1994,” it remarked.

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,” the Court stated.

The Bench explained that the case of V.R. Tripathi (supra) provided that a child born from the second wife is a legitimate child, and is entitled to a grant of compassionate appointment, however, the same would not be applicable to the Respondent as his “mother’s relationship with Hiralal Kochak is alleged to be contractual in nature.

Consequently, the Court observed, “On due consideration of the aforesaid factual and legal aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 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.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.

Cause Title: Praveen Kochak v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-IND:36852)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Hitesh Sharma

Respondents: Government Advocate Bhagyashree Gupta; Advocate General Anand Agrawal

Click here to read/download the Order