Ratandeep Meshram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1010 Chatt

                                       -1-


                                                                             NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                           WPS No. 3450 of 2021
   1. Ratandeep Meshram S/o Late Shri Yashwant Meshram Aged About 35
      Years R/o Shankarpur, Sharda Chowk, Ward No. 10, Rajnandgaon,
      District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                    Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,
      Chhattisgarh.
   2. District Education Officer District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
   3. Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
   4. The Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Gotatola, Block
      Mohala, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.            ---- Respondents

      For Petitioner             : Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate.
      For State                  : Shri Suyash Dhar, P.L.

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

09.07.2021   .

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2021 Annexure P/1 whereby the

claim for compassionate has been rejected by the respondent No. 2,

the present writ petition has been filed. The rejection has been done

on the ground that younger brother of the petitioner is in Government

employment.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are that

father of the petitioner Lt. Shri Yashwant Meshram working on the

post of Lecturer at Government Higher Secondary School, Gotatola,

Block Mohala District Rajnandgaon, died in harness on 04.04.2021.

On the date of death, the deceased left behind the widow, two sons

and one daughter. The younger brother of the petitioner Shri Avina

Meshram was already employed under the respondent-State and

was also married and has his own family wife and children to take

care of and the said brother was living separately. Thus, on the date

of death of the deceased, the dependants upon him were the widow,

one daughter and one son i.e. the petitioner in the case.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since his brother had

already got married long back and was also employed much before

the deceased had died, he was not supporting the petitioner in any

manner and even otherwise he has his own family responsibility and

liability to take care of, thus also he was not providing any financial

assistance to the petitioner or the dependence to the deceased for

their sustenance

4. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the respondents ought to

have considered these aspects by way a scrutiny or an enquiry only

thereafter an appropriate decision should have been taken, having

not done so and rejecting the application on a hypertechnical

ground, the impugned order would not be sustainable. According to

the Counsel for the petitioner, the manner in which the rejection

order has been passed, defeats the very purpose for which the

policy for compassionate appointment has been framed by the

Government.

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

that since the brother of the petitioner 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

judgment 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 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 there is a brother of the petitioner 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 and

his widowed mother particularly when he has his own family and

children to take care of and he has been living separately altogether.

It would had been a different case if the government employee i.e.

the brother of the petitioner could have been unmarried and was

living along with the petitioner which could have forced us to infer

that he was there for sustenance of the family.

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 said 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,

Annexure P-1 dated 31.05.2021 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 Jyotijha