Subodh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1991 Chatt

                                             1


                                                                                 NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 4448 of 2021
     Subodh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Direndra Lal Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o
     Uday College Acc Road, Bogda Pull, Nandani Road, Jamul, Bhilai Chowk,
     District Durg Chhattisgarh. 491661
                                                                      ---- Petitioner
                                          Versus
     1.      State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department
             Of School Education, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
             Nagar, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
     2.      The Director, Directorate Of School Education, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh,
             Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh
     3.      The District Education Officer, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
     4.      The Block Education Officer, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon
             Chhattisgarh
     5.      The District Collector, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer

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

25/08/2021

1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 17.07.2021 the present

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

petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The

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

petitioner was found to be in government employment.

2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition is

that the father of the petitioner late Direndra Lal Sahu was working

under the respondents as a Peon and who died in harness on

10.01.2021. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner has moved an

application for compassionate appointment, which has since been

rejected by the impugned order leading to the filing of the present writ

petition. The rejection is on the ground that one of the brothers of the

petitioner Devendra Kumar Sahu and his wife both are in government

employment and therefore the claim of the petitioner has been

rejected. According to the petitioner, at the time of death of the

deceased employee, it was the petitioner, who was totally dependent

upon the deceased. Moreover, the mother of the petitioner i.e. wife of

the deceased employee had already died earlier. It is the further

contention of the petitioner that he is a person, who is physically

handicapped and he suffers from Locomotor disability and the

disability is to the extent of 80% disability.

3. The further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner also

belongs to the other backward class community. Since the petitioner

was totally dependent upon the deceased employee, he had moved

his application for compassionate appointment however the

respondents authorities have in a technical manner rejected the claim

of the petitioner only on the ground that the brother of the petitioner

and his wife were found to be in government employment. According

to the petitioner his brother Devendra Kumar Sahu and his wife were

already in government employment and they had been married long

back, even before the deceased employee had died in this case and

therefore there was no dependency of the petitioner upon the said

brother and this aspect has not been verified by the respondents and

in a mechanical manner the impugned order has been passed.

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

petitioner and his wife were found to be in government employment

and not supporting financially to the petitioner, they do not fall within

the definition of dependents of the deceased. Moreover, the brother of

the petitioner or his wife cannot be considered to be a permanent

source of income for the petitioner for sustaining himself. 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 and his wife both are already in

government employment, in terms of the policy for compassionate

appointment the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected and in

the absence of any challenge to the policy, the decision of the

respondents 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 brother of the petitioner and his wife both are

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

particularly when they have 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 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 dated

17.07.2021 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