Chattisgarh High Court
Neeraj Kumar Uke vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 December, 2021
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 334 of 2021
Neeraj Kumar Uke son of Late Shri Vijay Kumar Uke, aged about 27
years, R/o Block No. A, Ward No. 69, Near Kharun Palace, Raipura,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Education
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Public Education Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Block Education Officer, Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General.
Date of hearing : 22.11.2021
Date of Judgment : 10.12.2021
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Goutam Bhaduri, Judge
C.A.V. Judgment
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Heard Mr. Pramod Ramteke, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 12.08.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 4204 of
2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was
dismissed.
3. The father of the appellant, who was working as Head Master in
Government Middle School, Diwanbhedi, died in harness on 01.01.2020.
The appellant had filed an application for compassionate appointment on
04.05.2020 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated
01.07.2020 on the ground that the mother of the appellant was already in
government service. The learned Single Judge, noting that the policy of
the government does not envisage grant of compassionate appointment
when a member of the family is already in government employment,
dismissed the petition.
4. Clause 6(A) of the Consolidated Revised Instructions regarding
compassionate appointment on the death of a government servant
during his service, 2013 (for short ,the 'Consolidated Revised
Instructions, 2013'), as translated to English, reads as follows:
"6(A) In the family of the deceased married government
employee, if any other member of the family is already in
government service, then no other member of the family
will be eligible for compassionate appointment."
5. It is not disputed by Mr. Ramteke that the appellant's mother
(wife of the deceased) is already in government employment.
Mr. Ramteke submits that the respondents are obliged to ascertain as to
whether the family member of the deceased employee, who is in
government service, is providing any financial assistance to the family of
the deceased. He further submits that the appellant is living separately
and that the appellant was dependent upon his father and therefore, the
appellant is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate
ground. In support of his contention, Mr. Ramteke has placed reliance on
the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Smt.
Sulochna Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , WP(S) No. 2728 of
2017, decided on 23.11.2017.
6. Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that no
obligation is cast on the Government to find out as to whether a member
of the family who is in government employment, is financially assisting
the other members of the family. He submits that compassionate
appointment can be claimed only on the basis of the scheme applicable
for such appointment. He further submits that the order of the learned
Single Judge does not call for any interference and accordingly, he prays
for dismissal of the writ appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the materials on record.
8. Perusal of the materials on record go to show that the appellant
is a married person, his marriage having been solemnised on
02.07.2017 and a female child was also born on 08.05.2018.
9. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana , reported in
(1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 2,
observed as follows:
"As a rule, appointments in the public services should be
made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications
and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other
consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor
the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other
procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules
for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions
carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain
contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the
dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving
his family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless some source
of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to
make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to
provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of
the deceased who may be eligible for such employment.
The whole object of granting compassionate employment
is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.
The object is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased ."
(emphasis added)."
10. In State Bank of India & Another v. Somvir Singh , reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 778, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to
all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in
respect of any employment or office under the State on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent. It is so
well settled and needs no restatement at our ends that
appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception
carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public
services is to be made in a transparent and accountable
manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to
compete and participate in the selection process. Such
appointments are required to be made on the basis of
open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of
employees died in harness do not have any special or
additional claim to public services other than the one
conferred, if any, by the employer."
11. In State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar , reported in (2010) 11 SCC
661, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is well settled that
appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment
and that it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public
services should be on the basis of merit by open invitation providing
equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection
process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have
any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the
concession that may be extended by the employer under the Rules or by
a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the
sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is
therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such
employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme.
12. In State of Himachal Pradesh & Another v. Parkash Chand,
reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that
compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be
governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of
offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased
government employee.
13. In the case of Smt. Sulochana Netam (supra), the husband of
the petitioner, who was working as a Constable, died in harness on
11.01.2017 leaving behind a 10 month old daughter and the petitioner.
They were dependent on the deceased government employee. Claim of
compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the ground
that the father-in-law of the petitioner was in government service. It was
in that background the learned Single Judge directed the authorities to
verify as to whether the father-in-law was living separately and was
providing financial help, and accordingly, remanded the matter for fresh
consideration.
14. The factual matrix in the present case is not akin to the case in
Smt. Sulochana Netam (supra).
15. In the context of clause 6(A) of the Consolidated Revised
Instructions, 2013, a question also arises as to whether the father-in-law
can be construed to be a member of the family for the purpose of
depriving the widow from securing appointment on the ground that her
father-in-law is in government service. This aspect was, however, not
considered in Smt. Sulochana Netam (supra).
16. It is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment
cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right.
Compassionate appointment can be claimed only on the basis of
scheme applicable for such appointment. When the scheme itself
provides that no appointment shall be granted on compassionate
ground, if any of the family members is in government service, no
appointment can be claimed on the ground that the family member in
government service is not giving any financial assistance. No obligation
is cast upon the government under the scheme to find out as to whether
such employee is providing any financial assistance to the other
members of the family.
17. In view of what is discussed above, we find no good ground to
interfere with the order of learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ
appeal is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Goutam Bhaduri)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit
