Chattisgarh High Court
Ku Tripti Daya vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 359 of 2021
1. Ku. Tripti Daya, D/o Late Shri Praveen Kumar Daya, aged about 23
years, Occupation Student,
2. Smt. Tabitha Daya, Wd/o Late Praveen Kumar Daya, aged about
63 years, Occupation Ex. Teacher.
Both are R/o Sirgitti Govind Nagar, Row No. 4, Qr. No. 10, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Tribal (ST/SC)
Devlp. Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department,
Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)
3. The Block Education Officer, Tribal Development, Antagarh, District
North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate
General.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
16.11.2021
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the
appellants. Also heard Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General appearing for State / respondents.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated
08.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
3. The father of the petitioner No. 1 and the husband of
petitioner No. 2, who was working as a regular Teacher in Government
School, Antagarh, District Kanker, died in harness on 30.03.2008. The
petitioner No. 1 was born on 21.09.1997 and at the time of death of her
father, she was about 12 years old. An application was filed on
30.10.2009 for appointment of the petitioner No. 1 on compassionate
ground. It is, however, not indicated in the writ petition as to why the
petitioner No. 2 did not file application for her appointment on
compassionate ground.
4. The prayer for compassionate appointment in respect of
petitioner No. 1 was rejected on 06.09.2014 by the Assistant
Commissioner / respondent No. 2. Writ petition came to be filed praying
for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2014 and for a direction to appoint
the petitioner No. 1 on compassionate grounds.
5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the
ground of belated approach by more than 7 years to this Court from the
date of rejection of the prayer of petitioner No. 1 for compassionate
appointment.
6. Mr. Shukla submits that the ground assigned while rejecting
the application for compassionate appointment was ex facie erroneous in
view of the fact though the application was filed within the period of 3
years from date of demise of the father of the petitioner No. 1, it was
wrongly held that such application was filed beyond the prescribed period
of 3 years. He has submitted that under the extant norms of
compassionate appointment, an application seeking compassionate
appointment has to be filed within a period of 3 years from the date of
death of the government servant which, in exceptional circumstances, can
be extended upto a period of 5 years. When the very reason assigned is
fallacious, it is submitted by Mr. Shukla that learned Single Judge
committed an error of law in not entertaining the application and rejecting
the same on the ground of belated approach to the Court.
7. Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, on the other hand, submits that the
learned Single Judge has justifiably dismissed the petition on the ground
of delay as after rejection of the prayer way back in the year 2014, the
petitioners did not choose to approach this Court assailing such rejection
within a reasonable period and approached this Court only after about 7
years and therefore, no interference with the order of learned Single
Judge is called for.
8. We have considered the submissions for learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the materials on record.
9. It well-settled that appointment on a compassionate ground is
not a source of recruitment and that is an exception to the general rule
that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit by an
open invitation providing equal opportunity to all the eligible persons to
participate in the selection process. The dependent of employees, who
die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment,
except by way of concession that may be extended by the employer
under the rules by separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased
to get over the sudden family crisis.
10. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that there is a
gross delay of about 7 years in approaching the Court after rejection of
the case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment, and it is in that
circumstance that the learned Single Judge has declined to exercise
discretion to entertain the writ petition. We are of the opinion that present
is not a case that warrants our interference with the order of the learned
Single Judge.
11. Taking that view, finding no merit, the writ appeal is
dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Goutam Bhaduri)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
