Smt.Meena Tiwari And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1188 Chatt

                            1

                                                     NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   WPS No.5906 of 2014

     1. Smt. Meena Tiwari, Wd/o Late Ramadhar Tiwari,
        Aged About 56 Years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Near
        Govt. College, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

     2. Dinanath Tiwari, S/o Late Ramadhar Tiwari,
        aged about 23 years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Near
        Govt. College, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

                                         ­­­­ Petitioners

                         Versus

     1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary,
        Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
        New   Raipur,   P.S.   Rakhi,  Dist   Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh

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

     3. Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range
        Office of I.G.P., Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

     4. Superintendent of Police,     Office   of   S.P.,
        Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                         ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent­State Mr. Soumya Rai, PL

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

16/07/2021

1. Mr. Ramadhar Tiwari working as Assistant Sub

Inspector in the Department of Home died in

harness on 20.08.2007 (Annexure­P/2). The

petitioner No.1, the widow of Ramadhar Tiwari

and the mother of petitioner No.2, made an

application for grant of compassionate

appointment to the petitioner No.2 on

09.10.2007 (Annexure­P/6), which has been

rejected on 19.03.2008 conveyed to the

petitioner vide memo/letter dated 31.08.2012

and 03.10.2013 vide Annexure­P/1 stating that

the elder son of the deceased and the

petitioner No.1 is the government servant

working as Shikha Karmi Grade­III, therefore,

as per circular dated 10.06.2003, the

petitioner No.2 is not entitled for

compassionate appointment, against which the

present writ petition has been preferred.

2. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that though the

petitioner No.2 is working as Shiksha Karmi

Grade­III in the Government Department, he is

residing separately and maintaining his

family, as such the enquiry ought to have been

made with regard to the dependency factor

while rejecting the application for

compassionate appointment on the ground that

one of the members of the family is already in

government service. He would rely upon the

judgment rendered by this Court in the matter

of Veermani Sonwani vs State of Chhattisgarh

and others, decided on 23.06.2020 in WPS

No.2355/2020. He would further submit that the

matter deserves to be remitted back for fresh

consideration on the application for grant of

compassionate appointment to the petitioner

No.2 in accordance with the decision rendered

by this Court in the matter of Veermani

Sonwani(supra).

3. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel for the

State, would support the impugned order and

would submit that according to the circular,

the case of the petitioner No.2 for grant of

compassionate appointment has rightly been

rejected.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made

herein­above and went through the record with

utmost circumspection.

5. It is not in dispute that Mr. Ramadhar Tiwari

working as Assistant Sub Inspector in the

Department of Home died in harness and the

application for grant of compassionate

appointment to the petitioner No.2 was made

within time by the petitioner No.1, which was

rejected on the ground that one of the members

of the family, the petitioner No.2, the elder

son of the petitioner No.1 and Mr. Ramadhar

Tiwari, is already working as Shikha Karmi

Grade­III in the Government Department.

6. This Court in the matter of Veermani (supra)

has clearly held that while granting the

compassionate appointment, the fact of

dependency has to be enquired and thereafter

the matter has to be considered. This Court in

para 6 of WPS No.2355/2020 has held as under:­

"The rejection order dated 25.09.2017 & 07.03.2020 when are translated in the judgment passed by this Court, it would show that it is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court as in the threshold the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the brother of the petitioner is working in the government department, therefore, under these circumstances, the order dated 25.09.2017 & 07.03.2020 are

are directed to conduct an enquiry and consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment after due verification of the dependency fact of the petitioner on his father. Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order."

7. Since no enquiry has been made with regard to

dependency of the petitioner No.2 over the

deceased and the application has been rejected

only on the ground that one of the family

members, the petitioner No.2 is already

working as Shikha Karmi Grade­III in the

Government Department, the petitioner No.2 is

not entitled for compassionate appointment in

terms of the circular, the order of the

respondent No.4 is per se bad and in teeth of

the decision rendered by this Court in the

matter of Veermani (supra). Accordingly, the

impugned order dated 19.03.2008 conveyed to

the petitioner vide memo/letter dated

31.08.2012 and 03.10.2013 vide Annexure­P/1 is

hereby set aside and the matter is remitted

back to the respondent No.4, the

Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur for

considering the case afresh for grant of

compassionate appointment to the petitioner

No.2 in accordance with law after making

enquiry as to the dependency as held by this

Court in the matter of Veermani (supra) within

a period of 2 months from the date of receipt

of copy of this order.

8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent

indicated above. No order as to cost (s).

Sd/­ Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge Nirala