Shashikant Singh Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 462 Chatt

                                       -1-
                                                                          NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                       Writ Petition (S) No. 2757 of 2021

      Shashikant Singh Yadav S/o Late Ramashray Yadav, Aged About
      34 Years, R/o House No. 133, Ward No. 13, Behind Jahaz Building,
      Near Church, Ramnagar, Supela Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                               ---- Petitioner
                                     Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, School
      Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. The District Education Officer, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                            ---Respondents

      For Petitioner             :      Shri Varun Mishra, Advocate.
      For State                  :      Shri Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate.


                   Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                            Order on Board
22.06.2021.

1. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for grant of

compassionate appointment vide Annexure P/1 dated 09.06.2020,

the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working

on the post of Headmaster under the respondents and died in

harness on 09.02.2019. The petitioner is survived along with his

mother and one younger brother who were totally dependent upon

the deceased employee. In addition, the petitioner has an elder

brother who is already in government employment, married long ago

and has his own family and children living separately in Bangalore

much before the employee had expired. Thus, on the date of death

of the deceased it was only the petitioner, his mother and one

younger brother who were dependent.

3. The petitioner had moved an application for compassionate

appointment with an undertaking given by the brother as also the

mother. However, vide the impugned order the application of the

petitioner has been rejected on the sole ground that the brother of

the petitioner is in a government employment and under the policy,

on account of a member in the family of the deceased being a

government employee, the claim has been rejected.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the elder brother got

his employment long back and he has already married and he has

his own wife and children and also lives separately, he does 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 and his widowed mother for

sustaining themselves. To that extent the authorities ought to have

conducted an inquiry and thereafter should have taken a decision.

5. 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.

6. 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 hyper-technical ground specifically dis-entitling

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

therefore 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 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 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 elder brother to the petitioner could have been unmarried and

was living along with the petitioners 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 petitioners are getting

from the elder 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, deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The authorities are

directed to re-consider the claim of 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 Khatai