Lokesh Kumar Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1804 Chatt

                                             1


                                                                                 NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 4314 of 2021
     Lokesh Kumar Thakur, S/o Late Prakash Chand Thakur Aged About 30
     Years R/o Ward No. 12, Sanjay Nagar, Block, Police Station And Tehsil
     Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
                                                                       ---- Petitioner
                                          Versus
     1.      State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary School Education
             Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District
             Raipur Chhattisgarh.
     2.      The Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal
             Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.
     3.      The District Education Officer, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
     4.      The Principal High School Surdogar, Block Dondi, District Balod
             Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ----Respondents

     For Petitioner                   :      Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate
     For State                        :      Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.


                           Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                    Order on Board

17/08/2021

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) the present

writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned order the claim of the

petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

The rejection has been on the ground of the elder brother of the

petitioner being in government employment.

2. The facts of the case necessary for disposal of the present writ petition

is that the father of the petitioner was working under the respondents

on the post of Peon, who died in harness on 31.03.2019. On the date

of death of the deceased, he was survived by his widow and two sons.

The eldest son Ramkumar Thakur was already in government

employment and is also married and has his own family and children

to take care of. He got government employment and also was married

long before the death of the deceased had died. The said Ramkumar

Thakur was also residing separately at Jagdalpur as he is working in

the Police Department. On the date of death, it was the widow and the

petitioner who were totally dependent upon the income of the

deceased.

3. It was the contention of the petitioner that his elder brother since he

was already married and in government employment long back, he

was not supporting the petitioner financially, hence they do not fall

within the definition of dependent of the deceased. In fact it was the

petitioner and the widow of the deceased, who were the only

dependents on the date of death. According to the petitioner, the

respondents authorities ought to have atleast conducted a preliminary

inquiry in this regard, so far as the dependency part is concerned and

only then thereafter should the respondents have taken an

appropriate decision. The impugned order to that effect, therefore is

not sustainable and deserves to be interfered with.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that since brother got his

employment long back and he has already married and he has his

own family and children and also living separately and not supporting

financially, they do not fall within the definition of dependents of the

deceased. Moreover, the brother who has already married and has his

own family depending upon him, cannot be considered to be a

permanent source of income for the petitioner and his widowed

mother for sustaining themselves. To that extent the authorities ought

to have conducted an enquiry and thereafter should have taken a

decision.

5. The State counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submits

that since the brother of the petitioner is already in government

employment, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment the

candidature of the applicant has been rejected and in the absence of

any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent cannot be

said to be bad.

6. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of a recent judgment

passed by this Court in WPS No. 1025/2020 (Nandini Pradhan &

another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). The said Writ Petition

was allowed on 18.2.2020 wherein the Court has relied upon the

judgment passed on an earlier occasion in the case of Smt.

Sulochana Netam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others in WPS No.

2728/2017 decided on 23.11.2017 wherein this Court had allowed the

said Writ Petition and set-aside the earlier order passed by the

authorities and had remitted the matter back for a fresh consideration

of the claim of Petitioner after due verification of dependency aspect,

firstly upon the deceased employee and secondly whether the brother

of Petitioner who is in government employment is providing any

assistance to Petitioner or not and also whether that brother has

married and has his own family or not and whether he is staying along

with petitioner or not. These are the facts which ought to have been

verified while rejecting the claim of Petitioner in the present Writ

Petition and which does not seem to have been considered by the

authorities and they simply passed an order on hypertechnical ground

specifically disentitling the Petitioner for claiming compassionate

appointment in the event of family members of deceased employee

being in government employment.

7. This Court is of the firm view that the intention by which the said

clause inserted by the State Government in the policy of

compassionate appointment was to ensure that the compassionate

appointment can be given to a person whose is more needy. It never

meant that in the event of there being somebody in the government

employment in the family of deceased employee, the claim for

compassionate appointment would stand rejected only on that ground.

Moreover, in the opinion of this Court the possibility cannot be ruled

out of the so called earning members and the so called persons who

are in government employment from among the family members of

deceased employee having their own family liabilities and in some

cases are far away from the place of deceased employee and staying

along with their own family. The rejection of the claim for

compassionate appointment to a person who was directly dependant

upon the earnings of deceased employee would be arbitrary and

would also be in contravention of the intentions of framing the scheme

for compassionate appointment.

8. In the case of Sulochana (supra), in paragraph 9, this Court dealing

with the said issue has held as under:-

"9. In the considered opinion of this Court, in a case, where claim of compassionate appointment is made on the ground that the other member of the family had started living separately and not providing any financial help to the remaining dependent members of the family, who are at lurch, factual enquiry ought to be made by the competent authority to arrive at its own conclusion of facts as to whether this assertion of other earning member living separately is factually correct or not. If it is found, as a matter of fact, that the other earning member of the family at the time of death had already started living separately and not providing financial assistance to the remaining dependents of the family, compassionate

appointment must follow to eligible dependent of the family. However, in the enquiry, if it is found that the claim is only to get employment without there being any need because other earning member of the family is not living separately and providing financial support compassionate appointment may not follow. The aforesaid enquiry is required to be done even though the policy does not categorically state so. The State should consider by incorporating amendments in the policy to deal with this such contingency where it is found that on the date of death of government servant, the other earning member was living separately and not providing any financial help."

9. The aforesaid principles of law laid down in the case of Sulochana

(supra) have been followed by this Court in a large number of cases

and that is the consistent stand of the various branches of this Court

in the past many years now. This Court is also in the given

circumstances inclined to hold that the rejection of the application of

Petitioner for compassionate appointment by a single line order only

on the basis of the clause mentioned in the scheme or policy of

compassionate appointment of the State Government would not be

sustainable. There ought to have been some sort of preliminary

enquiry so far as dependency part is concerned conducted by the

Respondents prior to reaching to a conclusion.

10. Considering the fact that elder brother is in government employment,

what needs to be verified is whether the said person can be brought

within the ambit of dependent. Whether the said person can be

compelled to take care of the petitioner and his widowed mother

particularly when he has his own family and children to take care of

and he has been living separately altogether.

11. In the absence of any such situation, the policy of the State Govt. to

that extent so far as compassionate appointment is concerned, has to

be read down to be decided only after an enquiry which needs to be

conducted by the respondents, ascertaining the dependency part and

also in respect of any support which the petitioner is getting from the

brother. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order needs to be

reconsidered and the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by

strict interpretation of the policy would not be sustainable.

12. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order (Annexure

P/1) dated 19.09.2019 deserve to be and is accordingly set-aside. The

authorities are directed to re-consider the claim of the Petitioner

afresh taking into consideration the observations made by this Court

in the preceding paragraphs and take a fresh decision at the earliest

within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this

order.

13. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved