Smt. Pratyaksha Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3704 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                                 NAFR
                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                    Writ Petition (S) No.81 of 2016

     Smt.Pratyaksha Sahu, D/o Late Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Sahu,
     aged about 35 years, R/o Village and Post Silyari, Tehsil
     Raipur, District­Raipur (CG)

                                                               ­­­­ Petitioner

                                     Versus

  1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, School
     Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District­
     Raipur (CG)

  2. District Education Officer, Raipur, District­Raipur (CG)

                                                                  ­­­­ Respondent

For Petitioner : Ms Prakritee Jain, Advocate on behalf of Mr.Prateek Jain, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Ravi Bhagat, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

15/12/2021

1. The petitioner herein calls in question the impugned order

dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure P­1) by which her application

for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected

by respondent No.2 on the ground that she is married

daughter of deceased government servant and therefore, in

view of policy prevalent, she is not entitled for

privilege of compassionate appointment.

2. Ms Prakritee Jain, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, would submit that in view of law declared by

this Court in WPS No.296/2014 (Smt.Sarojni Bhoi v. State

of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 30.11.2015, the

petitioner would be entitled for compassionate appointment

though she is married daughter. Therefore, the impugned

order dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure P­1) is liable to be set

aside.

3. On the other hand, Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State,

would submit that the impugned order was passed on

10.8.2010 and the present writ petition was filed on

6.1.2016 and as such, this writ petition suffers from

delay and laches and therefore, the petitioner is not

entitled for benefit of compassionate appointment. Even

otherwise, the petitioner has survived for a fairly long

time and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by

directing for consideration of the petitioner's case for

grant of compassionate appointment.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and

also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 10.8.2010 and

the present writ petition was filed on 6.1.2016 i.e. after

five years. Admittedly, no period of limitation has been

prescribed for filing the writ petition against the order

passed by the executive authority, but it must be filed

within a reasonable period i.e. within a period of three

years, but there is two more years delay in filing the

application, which the learned counsel for the petitioner

would respond that since the law whether married daughter

is entitled for compassionate appointment was unclear and

it was made clear by the pronouncement of this Court on

30.11.2015 in Smt.Sarojni Bhoi (supra), therefore, the

petitioner after waiting for law to be declared and as and

when the law was declared on 30.11.2015, she immediately

filed this writ petition on 6.1.2016, which cannot be held

to be barred by limitation. The argument appears to be

reasonable. Even otherwise, matrimonial dispute is also

pending consideration between the petitioner and her

husband, which was finally culminated into the order of

separation dated 5.1.2018, as such, it cannot be held that

writ petition suffers from delay and laches. Delay, if

any, has to be condoned. Accordingly, the writ petition is

held to not suffering from delay and laches.

6. The question for consideration is, whether married

daughter is entitled for compassionate appointment.

7. The question so posed is no longer res­intregra and it

stands concluded by decision of this Court in Smt.Sarojni

Bhoi (supra), in which this Court held as under:­

"27. In above­stated judgment with reference to Constitutional provisions, it has clearly been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that no discrimination can be made in public employment on gender basis as Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India clearly provides that no citizen shall on the ground of sex be ineligible or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State. In the case in hand, the married son is entitled for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father or mother as the case may be but that is not so with the unmarried daughter as such disqualification is based on sex. Thus, it is a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sex which is in teeth of Constitutional mandate guaranteed under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

28. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis, it emanates that institution of marriage is an important and basic civil right of man and woman and marriage by

itself is not a disqualification and impugned policy of the State Government barring and prohibiting the consideration of the married daughter from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground of marriage is plainly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantee envisaged in Article 14, 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India being unconstitutional.

29. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, writ petition is allowed and consequently Clause 3(1)(c) of policy relating to compassionate appointment dated 10/06/2003 and Clause 5(c) of policy dated 14/06/2013 being violative and discriminatory to the extent of excluding married daughter for consideration from compassionate appointment are hereby declared void and inoperative and consequently the impugned order (Annexure­P/3) rejecting the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment is quashed. The respondents/State is directed to reconsider the claim of petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground afresh in accordance with law keeping in view that her father died on 06/1/2011 and her application was rejected on 28/09/2011, preferably within a period of forty five days from the receipt of certified copy of order. No order as to cost(s)."

8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated

10.8.2010 (Annexure P­1) passed by respondent No.2 is

hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent

No.2 for consideration of the petitioner's application for

compassionate appointment afresh in light of decision

rendered by this Court in Smt.Sarojni Bhoi (supra) on its

own merit in accordance with law within 30 days from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated

hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/­

(Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge B/­