Paresh Singh Sikarwar Vs State of M.P. & others

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT 7 Feb 2017 14319 of 2015
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

14319 of 2015

Hon'ble Bench

Sujoy Paul

Advocates

Ayush Choubey, Sonali Shrivastava

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred

<a href=3998>Constitution of India</a>, <a href=3998-226>Article 226</a> - Power of High Courts to Issue certain writs

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 03.06.2013 (Annexure-P/8), whereby

the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the relevant original

documents despite directions passed by the authorities.

2. Mr. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no doubt the petitioner received the directions to submit the original documents, but

the original documents were deposited before the Bank. The respondents were apprised about this fact by communication dated 07.01.2012

(Annexure-R/3). It is submitted that now the petitioner has received the relevant documents which can be produce by him before the respondents.

Accordingly, the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the basis of the said

documents.

3. Ms. Sonali Shrivastava, learned P.L., has no objection.

4. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation and produce the relevant documents before the

respondent No.7, alongwith copy of this order.

5. In turn, the respondent No.7 shall examine the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the documents produced by him. The respondent No.7

shall examine the petitioner''s claim afresh without getting influenced by his earlier order dated 03.06.2013. The entire exercise be completed within

60 days for the date of submission of the representation. The outcome shall be communicated to the petitioner.

6. Petition stand disposed of without expressing any view on the merits of the case.

From The Blog
Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Read More
Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Read More