Yageshwar Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 960 Chatt

                                        -1-


                                                                               NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                        Writ Petition (S) No. 3384 of 2021

   1. Yageshwar Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Roop Ram Sahu, Aged About 37
      Years R/o Ward No. 12, Gandhi Chowk, Utai, Police Station Utai, Tahsil
      and District Durg Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ---Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur
      Chhattisgarh.
   2. The Collector, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
   3. The District Education Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Tridib Bhattacharya, Advocate.

      For State                   :      Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, Panel Lawyer.

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

08.07.2021   .

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2020, the present writ petition has

been filed. Vide the said impugned order, the respondents have rejected

the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the

ground that two brothers of the petitioner are already in government

employment.

2. Brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present writ petition is that

the father of the petitioner late Roop Ram Sahu was working as a

Headmaster under the respondents. He died in harness on 04.10.2019.

On the date of death the deceased employee the petitioner and widow of

the deceased were dependent on the deceased. They were totally

depending upon the income of the deceased. Two other brothers of the

petitioner i.e. sons of the deceased employee were already in government

employment, married long ago and have their own family and children

living separately even before the deceased had expired. Thus, on the date

of death of the deceased it was only the petitioner and his mother who

were dependent.

3. On the death of the deceased namely Roop Kumar Sahu, the petitioner

had moved an application for compassionate appointment, however, vide

the impugned order the application has been rejected on the sole ground

that the brothers of the petitioner are already in government employment.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that since two brothers got their

employment long back and they have already married and they have their

own family and children and also living separately and not supporting

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

deceased. Moreover, the two brothers who have already married and have

their own family depending upon them, cannot be considered to be a

permanent source of income for the petitioner 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.

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

since the two brothers of the petitioner are 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 two brothers in government employment, what

needs to be verified is whether the said person can be brought within the

ambit of dependent. Whether the said persons can be compelled to take

care of the petitioner and his widowed mother particularly when they have

their own family and children to take care of and they have been living

separately altogether.

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 two brothers. 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 04.06.2020 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 inder