Madhya Pradesh High Court
Preeti Chadhaar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3847
1 WP-9371-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9371 of 2021
PREETI CHADHAAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
“(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the
impugned order dated 19.04.2021 passed by respondent
No.3 as arbitrary erroneous illegal and void.
(ia) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside
the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by respondent No.3.
(ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to allow the petitioner’s application for
compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Sub
Inspector as she fulfills all the basic requirements on any
other post.
(iii) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted
together with the cost of this petition.”
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the daughter of Late
Shri Dwarika Prasad Chadhar who was working as Inspector in the Police
Department. He died in harness on 04.12.2020. Thereafter the mother of the
petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on the
post of Assistant Sub Inspector in favour of her daughter, the petitioner
herein to the respondent No.3. The petitioner has also submitted a form for
grant of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that marriage of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 28-01-2025
11:53:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3847
2 WP-9371-2021
petitioner was solemnized with one Mayank Kumar Singh on 11.02.2017.
However, owing to some matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and
her husband, they preferred an application under Section 13(b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce on mutual consent. The son of Late Shri
Dwarika Prasad Chadhar, brother of the petitioner namely Amit Chadhar has
also preferred an application for compassionate appointment and he also
preferred a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.3424 of 2021. The said
writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2021 by this Court with
a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner
therein. In pursuance to the said order the respondent No.3 issued a letter to
the mother of the petitioner to submit an application for grant of
compassionate appointment of her son. However, the mother of the
petitioner denied the claim of her son and requested the authorities to grant
compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter. The respondent No.3
vide impugned order dated 19.04.2021 has rejected the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment relying on Clause 2.3 of the
Circular dated 29.09.2014 and 25.10.2014 wherein it is provided that only a
widow or a divorced daughter is entitled for the compassionate appointment.
It is argued that the controversy involved in this matter is squarely
covered by the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of this Court in W.A
No.756/2019 order dated 02/03/2020 in the case of Meenakshi Dubey Vs.
M.P Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd and others wherein it is held that
there should be no discrepancy on the ground of sex, even a married lady is
entitled for compassionate appointment, subject to the fact that she is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 28-01-2025
11:53:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3847
3 WP-9371-2021
fulfilling the other conditions of the policy and Clause 2.2. of the policy
dated 29.4.2014 was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted
that the respondents/authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner in an
arbitrary manner. The respondents have failed to consider the aspect of the
case and has rejected the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment. It is submitted that the divorce has taken place between the
petitioner and her husband and decree of divorce has been granted to the
petitioner on 29.07.2021 and now the petitioner is residing at her parental
house. The respondents/authorities have not considered the aforesaid aspects
of the matter and has rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering
the fact that the petitioner is a dependent on the deceased Government
employee. It is submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Larger
Bench of this Court in the case of Meenakshi Dubey (supra), the order
impugned is unsustainable. Hence this petition.
Counsel appearing for the State fairly admits the fact that the
controversy is settled in the case of Meenakshi Dubey (Supra) and submits
that the matter may be remanded back for reconsideration to the concerning
authorities.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The record indicates that the petitioner is the daughter of Late Shri
Dwarika Prasad Chadhar who was working as Inspector in the Police
Department. He died in harness on 04.12.2020. Thereafter the mother of the
petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on the
post of Assistant Sub Inspector in favour of her daughter, the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 28-01-2025
11:53:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3847
4 WP-9371-2021
herein to the respondent No.3. The petitioner has also submitted a form for
grant of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that marriage of the
petitioner was solemnized with one Mayank Kumar Singh on 11.02.2017.
However, owing to some matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and
her husband, they preferred an application under Section 13(b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce on mutual consent. The divorce has taken
place between the petitioner and her husband and decree of divorce has been
granted to the petitioner on 29.07.2021 and now the petitioner is residing at
her parental house. The respondents/authorities have not considered the
aforesaid aspects of the matter and has wrongly rejected the claim of the
petitioner without considering the fact that the petitioner is dependent on the
deceased Government employee vide order dated 19.04.2021. Therefore, in
view of the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of
Meenakshi Dubey (supra), the order impugned dated 19.04.2021 is liable to
be set aside.
The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Meenakshi Dubey
(supra) relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Babita Puniya and others
reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 200 has held as under :-
“19. In a recent judgment reported in 2020 SCC OnLine
SC 200 (Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Babita Puniya
and others), the Apex Court opined that :-
“67. The policy decision of the Union
Government is a recognition of the right of
women officers to equality of opportunity. One
facet of that right is the principle of
nondiscrimination on the ground of sex which is
embodied in Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
The second facet of the right is equality ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 28-01-2025
11:53:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3847
5 WP-9371-2021
opportunity for all citizens in matters of public
employment under Article 16(1).”
This recent judgment in Babita Puniya(Supra) is a very
important step to ensure “Gender Justice”. In view of
catena of judgments referred hereinabove, it can be safely
concluded that Clause 2.2 to the extent it deprives married
woman from right of consideration for compassionate
appointment violates equality clause and cannot be
countenanced. By introducing Clause 2.4, the Government
partially recognised the right of consideration of married
daughter but such consideration was confined to such
daughters who have no brothers. Clause 2.2, as noticed,
gives option to the living spouse of deceased government
servant to nominate son or unmarried daughter. There is no
condition imposed while considering a son relating to
marital status. Adjective/condition of “unmarried” is
affixed for the daughter. This condition is without there
being any justification and; therefore, arbitrary and
discriminatory in nature.
21. Looking from any angle, it is crystal clear that clause
2.2 which deprives the married daughter from right of
consideration cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Thus, for
different reasons, we are inclined to hold that Indore Bench
has rightly interfered with Clause 2.2 of the said policy in
the case of Smt. Meenakshi(Supra).
22. In nutshell, broadly, we are in agreement with the
conclusion drawn by Indore Bench in Smt.
Meenakshi(Supra) and deem it proper to answer the
reference as under:
“Clause 2.2 of the policy dated 29.09.2014 is
violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39(a) of the
Constitution of India to the extent it deprives the
married daughter from right of consideration for
compassionate appointment. We find no reason
to declare Clause 2.4 of the policy as ultra vires.
To this extent, we overrule the judgment of
Indore Bench in the case of Meenakshi(Supra).
The issue is answered accordingly.”
Under these circumstances the impugned order dated 19.04.2021 is
unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the
respondents/authorities for reconsideration of the case of petitioner for grant
of compassionate appointment in terms of the policy applicable to the case
of the petitioner and taking note of the judgment passed by the Larger Bench
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 28-01-2025
11:53:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3847
6 WP-9371-2021
of this Court in the case of Meenakshi Dubey (supra). The entire exercise be
completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 28-01-2025
11:53:44
