Chattisgarh High Court

Satayavrat Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 November, 2021

                                       1

                                                                             NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WPS No. 3702 of 2021
      Satayavrat Mishra S/o Girdhari Mishra Aged About 30 Years R/o Kripa
       Bhawan, Opposite Forest Office, Beside Mahindra Showroom, Kobia,
       Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara,
       Chhattisgarh
                                                                  ---- Petitioner
                                    Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child
        Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
        Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh
     2. District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department
        Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara,
        Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---- Respondents

______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Abhyunati Singh, Panel Lawyer, on advance copy.

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board

26/11/2021

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and

propriety of the order/letter dated 18.6.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the

District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development Department,

Bemetara, District Bemetara(CG), whereby the application filed by the

petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground owing to the sad

demise of his mother, namely, Smt. Khamin Mishra, has been rejected.

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the mother of the petitioner

namely, Smt. Khamin Mishra, who was working as a Supervisor in Women and

Child Development Department, Bemetara, died on 10.9.2019 and

immediately after the sad demise of mother, the petitioner has moved an

application on 23.9.2019 seeking compassionate appointment. According to

the petitioner, since his sister though, is working as Supervisor in Women and

Child Development Department, but is livingly separately at Balod without

providing any financial assistance to the petitioner and the other family

members. Since his sister is living separately without providing any financial

assistance to him and as he was completely dependent upon his mother,

therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. However,

the said application has been rejected by the concerned authority, while

referring to Clause 6-A of the Circular dated 23.02.2019, whereby it has been

provided that if one of the members of the deceased employee is in

government job, then, in the said condition, the other family members would

not be entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. The claim has, thus,

been rejected.

3. The aforesaid order has been questioned by the petitioner mainly on

the ground that it has been passed without considering his dependency upon

the mother. It is, therefore, contended by Shri Ajay Shrivastava, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order impugned deserves to be

set aside and, in support, has placed his reliance upon the decision rendered

by this Court in the matter of Sanad Kumar Shyamale Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Others decided on 09.02.2021 in WPS No.407/2021.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while supporting the order

impugned, submits that according to the aforesaid circular, particularly in view

of Clause 6-A, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been refused and

therefore, the order impugned, does not require to be interfered.

5. I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire

papers annexed with this petition carefully.

6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner's mother

namely, Smt. Khamin Mishra who was working as a Supervisor in Women and

Child Development Department, Bemetara has died during the course of her

employment on 10.9.2019. It appears further that immediately after the sad

demise of mother, the petitioner has moved an application on 23.9.2019, but

the same has, however, been rejected while referring to the aforesaid clause

of the circular dated 23.2.2019 as mentioned herein above. However, no

inquiry with regard to the dependency of the petitioner as to whether he was

dependent upon his mother or not, was held prior to passing of the order

impugned dated 18.6.2021 (Annexure P-1).

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

passed by this Court in WPS No.1025/2020 (Smt. Nandini Pradhan and

Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was allowed by this

Court on 18.02.2020, 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 (supra). In the said matter, 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 the

Petitioner after due verification of dependency aspect. It is relevant to note

paragraph 9 of the said judgment Sulochana (supra) which reads 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."

8. While relying upon the aforesaid principle laid down in the aforesaid

judgment, this Court in the matter of "Sanad Kumar Shyamale Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh and others" passed on 09.02.2021 in WPS No. 407 of 2021

has observed at paragraph 10 in this regard which reads as under:-

"10. 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. 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 Benches 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. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.6.2021(Annexure P1)

passed by respondent No.2- District Programme Officer, Women and Child