Rachana Darwade vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1994 Chatt

                                         -1-




                                                                                 NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                          Writ Petition (S) No. 4453 of 2021

   1. Rachana Darwade D/o Suresh Darwade Aged About 36 Years Caste
        Mahar, R/o Cinema Line, Ward No. 07, Dongargaon, Tahsil Dongargaon,
        District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Higher
        Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Post Office and
        Police Station Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
   2.   Commissioner Directorate Of Higher Education, Block 2nd And 3rd Floor,
        Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur
        District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
   3.   District Education Officer Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
   4.   Block Education Officer Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
   5.   Principal Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Dongargaon District
        Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Shalin Singh Baghel, Advocate.

        For State                  :      Shri Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate.


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

25.08.2021

1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.06.2021 the present writ

petition has been filed. Vide the impugned order the respondents have

rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate

appointment. The reason for rejecting the application was on the ground

that wife of the petitioner's brother was found to be in government

employment.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition is that the mother of the

petitioner namely Sevanta Darwade was working under the respondents

as Lecturer and who died in harness on 20.05.2021. The petitioner is a

divorced daughter of the deceased. She applied for compassionate

appointment vide application dated 02.06.2021 and which stood rejected

vide order dated 30.06.2021. The rejection has been only on the ground

that wife of the petitioner's brother was found to be in government

employment and therefore in terms of the policy of the State Govt. the

same has been rejected.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that on the date of death it was

petitioner and her father, the two persons, who were totally dependent

upon the the income of the deceased. It is further contention of the

petitioner that on the date of death the brother of the petitioner who was

already married long before the date of death was staying separately with

his own family and children and that they were no longer dependents in

the family of the petitioner or the family of the deceased. According to the

petitioner, in the instant case the brother of the petitioner also who is

staying separately was not in a government employment, but it was his

wife who was in government employment and only because the wife of the

petitioner's brother was in government employment cannot be a solitary

ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground if she is otherwise entitled under the rules.

4. According to the petitioner, her brother and his family i.e. the sister in law

of the petitioner all are staying separately and they are no longer

dependents in the family of the deceased. Therefore, before rejecting the

claim application for compassionate appointment on that ground the

respondents should have conducted some sort of enquiry ascertaining the

dependency part.

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

since the petitioners brother's wife 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 judgement

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

brothers of Petitioner who are in government employment are providing

any assistance to Petitioner or not and also whether those brothers have

married and have their own family or not and whether they are 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 dis-

entitling 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 or the

so called person who is in government employment from among the family

members of deceased employee having their own family liabilities and in

some cases are also staying along with their own family, far away from the

place the deceased employee was staying. The rejection of the claim for

compassionate appointment of 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 wife of the petitioner's 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 particularly when she has her own

family and children to take care of and she has been living separately

altogether since long.

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 wife of the petitioner's

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 30.06.2021

deserves 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 inder