Chattisgarh High Court

Santosh Das Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 December, 2021

                                       1

                                                                          NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                WPS No.6595 of 2021
      Santosh Das Sahu S/o Late Shri Tilak Ram Sahu Aged About 26 Years
       R/o Village- Pisid, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar
       Bhatapara, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
                                                                  ---- Petitioner
                                    Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Water Resources
        Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, New Raipur
        (C.G.)
     2. The Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Kacchar, Water Resource
        Department, Atal Nagar New Raipur (C.G.)
     3. Deputy Director Hydrometeorology (Jal Mausam Vigyan) Division-4,
        Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
     4. The Superintendent Engineer Water Resources And Ground Water
        Survey Board, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)
                                                              ---- Respondents

______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner: Shri MK Sinha, Advocate For State/Respondents: Shri Lalit Jangde, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board

02/12/2021

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and

propriety of the order/letter dated 12-10-2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by the

respondent No.2-Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water

Resources Department, Raipur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner

seeking appointment on compassionate ground owing to the sad demise of his

father, namely, Tilak Ram Sahu, has been rejected.

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the father of the petitioner

namely, Tilak Ram Sahu, who was working as Watchman in the Water

Resources Department, has died during the course of his employment on

30-04-2021 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner has moved an

application on 21-06-2021(Annexure P-8) seeking for his appointment on

compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, since he and other family

members were completely dependent upon his father, therefore, he is entitled

to be appointed on compassionate ground. However, the said application has

been rejected by the concerned authority, while referring to clause 6-A of the

circular dated 23-02-2019, whereby it has been provided that if one of the

members of the deceased employee is in government job, then, in the said

condition, the other family members would not be entitled to be appointed on

compassionate ground. Since the petitioner's brother namely Manbodh Das

Sahu was found to be in government job, therefore, the application for

compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide

order/letter impugned dated 12-10-2021.

3. The aforesaid order/letter impugned has been questioned by the

petitioner mainly on the ground that it has been passed without considering his

dependency on his father. It is, therefore, contended by Shri Sinha, learned

counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the order/letter impugned deserves to

be set aside and, in support, has placed his reliance upon the decision

rendered by this Court in the matter of Sanad Kumar Shyamale Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Others decided on 09-02-2021 in WPS No.407/2021.

4. On the other hand, Shri Jangde, learned State counsel, while

supporting the order impugned, submits that according to the aforesaid

circular, particularly in view of clause 6-A, the claim of the petitioner has rightly

been refused and therefore, the order impugned, does not require to be

interfered.

5. I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire

papers annexed with this petition carefully.

6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner's father namely

Tilak Ram Sahu was performing his duties on the post of Watchman in the

Department of Water Resources and during the course of his employment, he

died on 30-04-2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic. It appears further that

immediately after the sad demise of father, the petitioner has moved an

application on 21-06-2021 for his appointment on compassionate ground, but

the same has, however, been rejected while referring to the aforesaid clause

of the circular as mentioned hereinabove, as the petitioner's brother namely

Manbodh Das Sahu was found to be in government job. It is true that the

petitioner's brother namely Manbodh Das Sahu was found to be in

government job, however, no inquiry with regard to the dependency of the

petitioner as to whether he was actually dependent upon his father or not, was

held prior to passing of the order/letter impugned dated 12-10-2021 (Annexure

P-1).

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

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

Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was allowed by this

Court on 18.02.2020, 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, decided by this Court on 23-11-2017 in WPS

No.2728 of 2017. In the said matter, 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 the Petitioner

after due verification of dependency aspect. It is relevant to note paragraph 9

of the said judgment Sulochana (supra) which reads 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."

8. While relying upon the aforesaid principle laid down in the aforesaid

judgment, this Court in the matter of "Sanad Kumar Shyamale Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh and others" passed on 09.02.2021 in WPS No.407 of 2021

has observed at paragraph 10 in this regard which reads as under:-

"10. 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."

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 Benches 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. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12-10-2021(Annexure P-1)

passed by respondent No.2-Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar,

Water Resources Department, Raipur deserves to be and is hereby set aside.

The concerned respondent authority is directed to 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 a copy of this order.