Smt. Mamta Bharge vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1187 Chatt

                                   1

                                                                    AFR
        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                       WPS No. 3097 of 2015


    Smt. Mamta Bharge, Wd/o Late Ambika Lal Bharge,
    Aged     about    25   years,      R/o   Khusrupali,        Tahsil
    Basna, Distt. Mahasamund at Present R/o Village
    Sapos, Medhapali, Tahsil Dabhara, Distt. Janjgir­
    Champa, Chhattisgarh.

                                                   ­­­Petitioner

                                 Versus

  1. State   of    Chhattisgarh,       Through    The       Secretary,
    Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New
    Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

    1A. State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary,
    General       Administration       Department,      Mantralaya,
    Mahanadi       Bhawan,      New    Raipur,    Distt.       Raipur,
    Chhattisgarh.

  2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter,
    Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

  3. Assistant       Inspector          General        of       Police
    (Administration),           Head   Quarter    Raipur,       Distt.
    Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

  4. Superintendent        of    Police,     Bastar,        Jagdalpur,
    Chhattisgarh.

                                                 ­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner :­ Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For State :­ Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board (Through Video Conferencing)

16/07/2021

1. This is a classic case where petitioner's

husband, being a Constable and part of the

anti­naxalite programme "Crake Section",

suffered serious bullet injuries and succumbed

to death and thereafter, petitioner immediately

applied for grant of compassionate appointment

wherein she was asked to submit succession

certificate and when she filed the succession

certificate, her application was rejected

branding the application as time­barred.

2. The petitioner herein, being the widow of

deceased Government servant, calls in question

the legality, validity and correctness of the

order impugned dated 30/05/2015 (Annexure P­1)

by which her application for grant of

compassionate appointment has been rejected by

respondent No. 3 holding that her application

was beyond the period of limitation of three

years as prescribed by respondent No. 3/State in

its Circular.

3. Petitioner's husband was a Police Constable and

at the relevant point of time, he was posted at

Police Station Mardapal, Kondagaon wherein an

anti­naxal programme was constituted namely

'crake section' and petitioner's husband was a

part of that programme. On 28/05/2007,

petitioner's husband with 11 other constables

went to the place Puspal where about 250­300

naxalites attacked on them by firing and by

explosion of bombs due to which 9 constables

died and petitioner's husband received bullet

injuries in his right hand. He was taken to the

local hospital and thereafter he was referred to

M.M.I. Hospital, Raipur where his ring finger

was amputated and on 16/06/2007, he was

discharged from the hospital. But ultimately on

05/04/2008, petitioner's husband died due to the

serious injuries caused to him in the naxalite

attack.

4. Petitioner made an application before respondent

No. 4 for grant of compassionate appointment on

07/05/2008 wherein respondent No. 4 directed the

petitioner to file succession certificate to

demonstrate that she is the legally wedded wife

of the deceased Government servant since their

marriage was solemnized on 10/03/2008 and her

husband had died on 05/04/2008 in less than a

month. Thereafter, though with a little delay,

petitioner applied for succession certificate

which was granted by the competent Court on

08/03/2013 (Annexure P/5) and along with the

said certificate, petitioner again applied for

grant of compassionate appointment on

11/03/2013, but ultimately by the impugned order

dated 30/05/2015 (Annexure P­1), her application

stood rejected on the ground of delay of 7 years

holding that application for compassionate

appointment ought to have been filed by the

petitioner within three years from the date of

death of her husband/Government servant.

5. Return has been filed by the State stating that

succession certificate was rightly called for by

respondent No. 4 as there was dispute with

regard to marital status of the petitioner with

that of the deceased as their marriage is said

to have solemnized on 10/03/2008 and thereafter,

petitioner's husband died on 05/04/2008 within

less than a month and petitioner's application

for grant of compassionate appointment has also

rightly been rejected because it was filed with

a delay of 7 years whereas as per the Circular

dated 10/06/2003, the said application ought to

have been filed within three years from the date

of death of the deceased/petitioner's husband.

6. Ms. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that respondent No. 3

is absolutely unjustified in dismissing

petitioner's application holding that she is not

entitled for grant of compassionate appointment

on the ground of delay of 7 years as the delay

was not on the part of the petitioner rather it

was caused because of obtaining the succession

certificate which was asked from her by

respondent No. 4, as such, the delay is not

deliberately or intentionally caused by the

petitioner and her application could not have

been rejected. Therefore, the impugned order

deserves to be quashed.

7. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned Deputy Advocate

General for respondents/State, would support the

impugned order and submit that as per the

Circular dated 10/06/2003, the period of

limitation for filing application for

compassionate appointment is three years from

the date of death of the deceased/Government

servant and petitioner's application has rightly

been rejected as it was filed after 7 years from

the death of her husband, as such, the instant

petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein­

above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

9. It is not in dispute that petitioner's husband

died in harness on 05/04/2008 and thereafter, on

07/05/2008, petitioner moved an application well

within time for grant of compassionate

appointment, but respondent No. 4 directed the

petitioner to submit succession certificate to

demonstrate that she is the legally wedded wife

of the deceased. She applied for the succession

certificate and it was ultimately granted to her

on 08/03/2013. Immediately thereafter,

petitioner again moved the application for grant

of compassionate appointment along with the

succession certificate on 11/03/2013, but now it

has been rejected vide impugned order on the

ground of delay of 7 years in filing the said

application.

10. The fact remains that petitioner's husband died

on 05/04/2008 and she promptly applied for

compassionate appointment on 07/05/2008 which is

well within the period of three years prescribed

in the Circular dated 10/06/2003 applicable for

such appointment but it was respondent No. 4 who

asked for succession certificate from the

petitioner to demonstrate that she is the

legally wedded wife of the deceased/Government

servant as their marriage was solemnized on

10/03/2008 and her husband died shortly

thereafter on 05/04/2008. As directed by

respondent No. 4, petitioner applied for

succession certificate before the Succession

Court under the provisions contained under

Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925

though with little delay on 26/02/2013 and it

was granted to her on 26/02/2013 and the

certificate was issued on 08/03/2013 (Annexure

P/5). Immediately thereafter she moved the

application for grant of compassionate

appointment along with the succession

certificate on 11/03/2013 but it stood rejected

on the ground of delay.

11. Now the question would be whether the State

authorities are justified in rejecting

petitioner's application as time­barred ?

12. It is well­settled law that rules of limitation

are not meant to destroy the rights of the

parties rather they are meant to see that the

parties seek their remedy right in time.

13. In the matter of Popat and Kotecha Property v.

State Bank of India Staff Association1, Their

Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as

under :­

"9. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So, a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time.

1 2005 (7) SCC 510


            (See     N.     Balakrishanan                 v.          M.

            Krishnamurthy )."

14. In this connection, reference may be made to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of

Susma Gosain v. Union of India3 in which Their

Lordships have clearly directed that in all the

claims for appointment on compassionate grounds,

there should not be any delay in appointment and

it is improper to keep such a case pending for

years. It was held as under :­

"9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread­earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore be provided to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years."

15. Reverting to the facts of the present case in

light of principle of law laid down by the

Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it is quite

vivid that petitioner applied for grant of

compassionate appointment right on time but

respondent No. 4 directed her to file succession

certificate in order to get the benefits

including dues of her deceased husband for which

2 (1998) 7 SCC 123 3 (1989) 4 SCC 408

she applied though with some delay but it was

granted to her on 08/03/2013 and immediately

thereafter on 11/03/2013, she produced the

succession certificate along with the

application for compassionate appointment, as

such, the delay that occurred in obtaining the

succession certificate has to be excluded while

computing the period of limitation and if that

period is excluded from 07/05/2008 to 11/03/2013

i.e. the date on which petitioner initially

filed the application for compassionate

appointment and date on which she was granted

the succession certificate, petitioner's

application would fall well within the period of

limitation of three years as prescribed in the

Circular dated 10/06/2003. Therefore, respondent

No. 4/competent authority ought to have

considered that the time spent in complying his

direction and obtaining succession certificate

should be excluded while computing the period of

three years, particularly when petitioner is a

widow whose husband died due to naxalite attack

and more particularly when petitioner's marriage

was solemnized with the deceased/Government

servant on 10/03/2008 and shortly thereafter her

husband died on 05/04/2008. The delay (if any)

caused by the petitioner in filing the

application cannot be said to be caused

deliberately or intentionally, as such, the

delay from 07/05/2008 upto 08/03/2013 which is

time spent in obtaining succession certificate

deserves to be excluded while computing the

period of limitation of three years otherwise it

will give a ground to the Government authority

to delay the consideration of application for

compassionate appointment seeking succession

certificate and then to reject the application

holding that the application has not been filed

within the period of three years as indicated in

the Government Circular and the legitimate

right/claim of the deserving dependant of the

deceased Government servant would extinguish.

16. Thus the action of respondent authorities in

firstly asking for succession certificate from

the petitioner in the application for

compassionate appointment which was filed by her

right in time and then after obtaining the said

certificate, which admittedly took time,

rejecting petitioner's application for

compassionate appointment branding the same as

time­barred, as such, such an act is patently

arbitrary and demonstrates lack of

responsibility and sensitivity towards the

petitioner who lost her husband within one month

of her marriage while fighting with the

naxalites.

17. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid

legal discussion, the impugned order dated

30/05/2015 (Annexure P­1) passed by respondent

No. 3 rejecting petitioner's application for

grant of compassionate appointment is hereby

quashed and matter is remitted to respondent No.

4/competent authority for consideration of

petitioner's case for compassionate appointment

on merits within 30 days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

18. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition

stands disposed of. No cost(s).

19. Before parting with the record, attention of the

State Government is invited towards paragraph 9

of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in

the matter of Susma Gosain (supra) as quoted

herein­above (paragraph 14) to consider the

cases of compassionate appointment promptly. I

hope and trust that the State Government will

take effective steps to consider and dispose of

the application for compassionate appointment

promptly in future.

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Harneet