Chattisgarh High Court
Madhukant Sinha vs Chhattisgarh State Power ... on 15 November, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 73 of 2020
Madhukant Sinha S/o Late Shri Devvrat Sinha Aged About 31 Years Resident of
Sastri Chowk, Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil Arang , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its
Managing Director , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Executive Engineer (Communication / Conservation) Division , C.S.P.D.C.L.
Balod Chhattisgarh.
3. Assistant Engineer (W) C.G.S.P.D. Co. Ltd. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause Title has been taken from Case Information System)
__________________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Ayaz Naved, Government Advocate
__________________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Vimla Singh Kapoor, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
15.11.2021
Heard Mr. Ritesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Chawla, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ appeal is preferred against an order dated 26.09.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.4596 of 2019, dismissing the writ
petition, by which the petitioner has sought for direction for compassionate
appointment.
3. The petitioner's father died in harness on 11.01.1996. The
petitioner filed an application seeking compassionate appointment in the year
2014 and the same was refused vide order dated 03.12.2014. Challenging the
aforesaid order, the writ petition came to be filed on 17.06.2019 after 4½ years
of rejection of the prayer made for compassinate appointment.
4. It is on the ground of inordinate delay in seeking compassionate
appointment that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
5. Mr. Verma submits that in similar circumstances, the writ appellate
Court in Writ Appeal No. 606/2018, vide order dated 05.12.2018, had directed
consideration of the case filed by the writ appellant for compassionate
appointment.
6. A perusal of the said order would go to show that this Court in the
aforesaid order had noted that immediately after the appellant having attained
majority, she had filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment.
7. Same is not the position in the instant case. In the year 2006, the
appellant had attained his majority. He had not taken any steps for
compassionate appointment after attaining majority and waited for eight long
years and thereafter also, after rejection of his case in the year 2014, waited
another 4½ years to make an approach to this Court.
8. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not
a source of recruitment and that it is an exception to the general rule that
recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit by open invitation
providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selecton
process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any
special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may
be extended by the employer under the Rules or by a separate scheme, to
enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
9. In the facts of the present nature, we are of the considered opinion
that no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
