Girja Devi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1347 Chatt

                                       -1-



                                                                           NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                          WPS No. 3807 of 2021
  1. Girja Devi D/o Late Yadav Ram Thakur Aged About 29 Years R/o 11/14,
     North Vasundhara       Nagar,    Bhilai-3,   Tahsil   Patan, District- Durg,
     Chhattisgarh.                                             ---- Petitioner
                                     Versus
  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue,
     Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh
  2. Collector, ( Land Records), Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
  3. Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue), Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
  4. Tahsildar, Durg, Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh     ----Respondents

For Petitioners : Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate.

     For State                   : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

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

26/07/2021

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at

admission stage.

2. Aggrieved of the order Annexure P/1 dated 28.05.2021, the present

writ petition has been filed.

3. Vide the said impugned order, the claim of the petitioner for grant of

compassionate appointment has been rejected. The ground for

rejection of the claim of the petitioner was that of the brother of the

petitioner being in Govt. employment.

4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are

that father of the petitioner Lt. Yadav Ram Thakur was working as a

Patwari under the respondents. While working on the said post, he

died on 07.10.2020. On the date of death, it was the petitioner along

with her sister and her mother i.e. widow of the deceased who were

dependent upon the deceased. On the date of death i.e. on

07.10.2020, the deceased was survived by his widow, one son and

two daughters, both the daughters are unmarried and one daughter

namely Girja Devi is the present petitioner in the case. The son of

the deceased i.e. brother of the present petitioner was the eldest

child in the family and who is already married on 22.07.2015 and is

also in government employment. Since he is already married and he

has his wife and children to take care of and they were no longer

dependent to the deceased neither were they dependent in the

family of the deceased any further. Since the elder brother was

already married and has his wife and children and other liabilities

including the fact that he was posted in Kabirdham and also live

separately, he was not able to sustain the petitioner and other

dependents of the deceased.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that since the elder brother got

his employment long back and he is already married on 22.07.2015

and he has his own wife and children and also live separately and

not supporting financially, they do not fall within the definition of

dependent of the deceased. Moreover, the elder brother who is

already married and has his own family dependent upon him, cannot

be considered to be a permanent source of income for the petitioner-

applicant and his widowed mother for sustaining themselves. To that

extent the authorities ought to have conducted an enquriy and

thereafter should have taken a decision.

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

that since the elder 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.

7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of a recent

judgement 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.

8. 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.

9. 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."

10.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.

Considering the fact that there is an elder brother 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, her sister and

her widowed mother particularly when he has his own family and

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

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

the elder brother to 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 elder brother.

12. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order needs to be

reconsidered and the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by

applying strict interpretation of the policy would not be sustainable.

13.Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order, Annexure P-

1 dated 28.05.2021 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.

14.Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

J-