Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Gayatri vs The Chhattisgarh State Power ... on 16 January, 2025
1
SATISH
TUMANE
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No.3358 of 2017
1 - Smt. Gayatri D/o Late Shri Ramprasad, Aged About 30 Years
Digitally Occupation Un-Employed R/o Ghutrapara, Ambikapur, P. S.
signed by
SATISH
TUMANE
Ambikapur, Civil And Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited
Through Its Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Through
Its Director General Manager H R D, Daganiya, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3 - Deputy General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation
Company Limited, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan Daganiya, Raipur, District
Raipur,Chhattisgarh
4 - Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission
Company Limited (Meter Rile Testing Sub Station) Vishrampur, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on board 16.01.2025
1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by 2 the Respondent No.4-Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, whereby, the application made by the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the petitioner is the dependent widowed daughter, therefore, the respondent authorities have erred in rejecting her claim for appointment on compassionate ground. It is contended further that even the married daughter has been held to be entitled to be appointed as such, by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Chandrani Sinha vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Holding Company Limited and another, decided on 07.09.2016 in Writ Petition (S) No.5576 of 2014, therefore, the order impugned be quashed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Bank and others vs. Promila and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729, submits that since the alleged policy issued on 30/07/2013, was not in existence at the relevant point of time, when petitioner's father was died on 25/09/2010, therefore, no illegality has been committed, while rejecting her claim. It is contended further that since the petitioner's claim of similar nature has already been rejected earlier, vide order dated 26.05.2011(Annexure P-4) and, which has attained its finality, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on 3 compassionate ground and, the petition, as framed, is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.
5. From perusal of the record, it appears that father of the petitioner namely, Late Ram Prasad, who was employed in the respondent department on the post of Peon, has passed away on 25.09.2010, during his service tenure. Immediately after the sad demise of him, the petitioner, being a daughter, moved an application (Annexure P-3/Annexure R-1) on 31.01.2011, seeking her appointment on compassionate ground along with a consent letter of her mother. While moving the said application (Annexure P-3/Annexure R-1), the petitioner has, however, not disclosed the fact that she is the widowed wife of one Nand Kishore.
6. Be that as it may, the Policy, being No.01-05/PD-3/1204, Raipur dated 28.02.2004, was in existence at the relevant point of time when her father was died on 25.09.2010 and, according to Clause-7 of it, the entitlement of the deceased employee would be available to wife, son or unmarried daughter (adopted son/daughters), who are completely dependent upon the said employee. The said clause is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under :-
7. "अनुकंपा नियुक्ति मृतक कर्मचारी के परिवार के किसी एक सदस्य पत्नि, पुत्र अथवा अविवाहित पुत्री (दत्तक पुत्र/ पुत्रियॉ शामिल रहेंगे) जो कि परिवार पर पूर्ण तः आश्रित है, को ही प्रदान की जायेगी। पुत्र के अनुकंपा नियुक्ति 4 प्रकरण में मृतक की विधवा को इस आशय का शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत करना होगा कि उसका पुत्र (विवाहित अथवा अविवाहित) पूर्ण तः मृतक के परिवार पर आश्रित है एवं परिवार से vyx नहीं है। मृतक कर्मचारी के परिवार के किसी आश्रित सदस्य के मण्डल की सेवा में होने पर अन्य सदस्य को अनुकंपा नियुक्ति की पात्रता नहीं होगी। मृतक कर्मचारी का ऐसा पुत्र जो पूर्व से ही परिवार से अलग है को अनुकंपा नियुक्ति की पात्रता नहीं होगी किन्तु उपरोक्त स्थिति में मृतक के अन्य पुत्र जो परिवार के साथ हैं को मृतक की विधवा की सहमति पर अनुकंपा नियुक्ति दिये जाने पर विचार किया जायेगा। अविवाहित पुत्री को भी अनुकंपा नियुक्ति मृतक की विधवा की सहमति पर ही दी जायेगी। मृतक के पुत्र/पुत्री को अनुकंपा नियुक्ति इस शर्त के साथ प्रदान की जायेगी कि वह मृतक की विधवा एवं परिवार के अन्य आश्रित सदस्यों के भरण पोषण की पूर्ण जिम्मेदारी लें अन्यथा भविष्य में विधवा की शिकायत पर उनकी नियुक्ति को निरस्त किया जा सकेगा।"
7. After taking note of the aforesaid policy, particularly Clause-7 of it, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order/letter dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that since the petitioner was a married daughter, therefore, she is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground and, accordingly, the said application was returned to her with the aforesaid observation, as such, the said order has attained its finality by efflux of time.
8. After the rejection of the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, a new policy was introduced by the respondent authorities on 30.07.2013 (being No.01-05/PD-6/2478), wherein, the dependent widowed daughter was included for the consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. It, therefore, appears that after the issuance of said policy, the petitioner has woken-up and moved another application on 23.08.2016 (Annexure P-6, available at Page-25 of petition), but 5 without disclosing the refusal of her earlier claim of similar nature and prayed for her appointment on compassionate ground, as she is the dependent widowed daughter of said Ram Prasad. The application, as made by the petitioner on 23.08.2016, was rejected by the respondent No.4 vide its order impugned dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) observing, inter alia, that the policy (Annexure P-5) issued on 30.07.2013 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner as it was not in existence when her father was died on 25.09.2010, as such, no benefit could be provided to the petitioner based upon the said policy and accordingly, the said application was rejected, while returning the same to her, as was returned earlier upon refusal of her claim on 26.05.2011.
9. What is, therefore, reflected from perusal of the entire records that the petitioner's father, who was performing his duties on the post of Peon in the respondent department was died on 25.09.2010 and, the application made by the petitioner on 31.01.2011 (Annexure P-3/Annexure R-1) seeking appointment on compassionate ground was rejected vide order dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure P-4) while taking note of the Policy, dated 28.02.2004, which was in existence at the relevant point of time when her father was died on 25.09.2010. The said order rejecting her claim, has attained its finality by efflux of time and, since the subsequent policy (Annexure P-5), issued by the respondent authorities on 30.07.2013, was not in existence at that particular time, when petitioner's father was passed away on 25.09.2010, the claim of the petitioner has, thus, rightly been refused 6 by way of the order impugned dated 22.09.2016 and, no interference based upon the subsequent policy is, therefore, called for.
10. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Bank (supra), wherein, it has been held at paragraphs 18 & 20, as under :-
18. "The question of applicability of any subsequent Scheme really does not apply in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412. Thus, it would not be appropriate to examine the case of the respondents in the context of subsequent Schemes......"
20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles applicable to the cases of compassionate employment i.e., succor being provided at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment. If these factors are kept in mind, it would be noticed that the respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant stage of time, as per the norms, to deal with the unfortunate situation which they were faced with. Thus, looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot claim benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee, which could have been considered to be applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412. It is not for the courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review, as has been recently emphasized by this Court in State of H. P. v. Prakash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285."
7
11. In the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Bank (supra), it is, thus, apparent that the policy, which was in existence at the time of death of the employee would alone be taken into consideration and, since the policy issued by the respondent authorities in the year 2013, much after the sad demise of the petitioner's father would, therefore, be not applicable and, the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality in rejecting her claim.
12. In so far as the reliance placed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the matter of Chandrani Sinha (supra) is concerned, the same is, however, on different footings and would be of no use being distinguishable from the facts involved herein.
13. The petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane