Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2881 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                         NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      Writ Petition (S) No. 5857 of 2021

      Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramswarup Sahu, Aged
      About 37 Years, R/o Quarter No. H - 31, Irrigation Colony, Rudri,
      Police Station Rudri, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
      Resources,     Mahanadi    Bhawan,    New    Raipur,    District   Raipur
      Chhattisgarh

   2. The Engineer In Chief, Department Of Water Resources, Sihawa
      Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

   3. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Department Of
      Water Resources, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

   4. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Dhamtari, District
      Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

   5. The Collector Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

                                                             ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 26.10.2021

1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P-1 dated 21.09.2021 the present

writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned order, the claim for

compassionate appointment has been rejected. The rejection has

been on the ground that the respondents have found two brothers of

petitioner in government employment.

2. The present is a second round of litigation. The earlier writ petition

was WPS No. 3324/2016. The said writ petition came up for hearing

before this High Court on 19.07.2021 and the High Court taking into

consideration the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of

Sulochana Netam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No.

2728/2017 dated 23.11.2017, in paragraphs - 5 to 7 made the

following observations:

"5. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the State Government for making an enquiry about dependency of the petitioner over the deceased government servant and whether his brothers are supporting the petitioner or not and they are living separately in light of the decision rendered by this court in the matter of Sulochana Netam (supra) and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law, on its own merits within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Nor order as to cost(s).

7. The petitioner is at liberty to make additional representation, if he so desires."

3. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the aforesaid writ

petition, the impugned order now has been passed vide Annexure P-1

dated 21.09.2021. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of

the contents of the impugned order. For ready reference, the

operative part of Annexure P-1 is reproduced hereinunder:

" Jh jkeLo:i lkgw] ekufp=dkj ¼flfoy½ ty lalk/ku

laHkkx] /kerjh dk lsokdky esa fnukad 22-12-2014 dks

vlkef;d e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k vkids }kjk vuqdEik

fu;qfDr grq fnukad 17-01-2015 dks vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k

FkkA

Lok- "kkldh; lsod ds izFke iq= Jh eksgu yky lkgw

Fkkuk nkM+h esa iz/kku vkj{kd ,oa NksVk iq= Jh vf[kys"k dqekj

lkgw jf{kr dsUnz :nzh esa vkj{kd ds in ij "kkldh; lsok esa

dk;Zjr gSA

Nrrhlx<+ "kklu] lkekU; iz"kklu foHkkx] ea=ky;]

jk;iqj ds ifji= dzekad ,Q&7&[email protected]@1&3 fnukad

14-06-2013 ds dafMdk 6&^^ijUrq e`rd "kkldh; lsod ds

ifjokj esa ;fn iwoZ ls gh ifjokj dk dksbZ vU; lnL;

"kkldh; lsok esa gS] rks ifjokj ds fdlh vU; lnL; dks

vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA^^ pwafd Lo-

"kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa iwoZ ls gh nks iq= "kkldh;

lsok esa lsokjr gSA vr% izdj.k es vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh

ik=rk ugha curhA lkFk gh Nrrhlx<+ "kklu] ty

lalk/ku foHkkx ] ea=ky;] jk;iqj ds i= dzekad

[email protected]@[email protected]@2011 fnukad 02-07-015 ds

vuqlkj lkekU; iz"kklu foHkkx ls [email protected]"kZu ds

vuqlkj ^^izdj.k esa fnoaxr "kkldh; lsod ds nks iq=

"kkldh; lsok esa gksus ds dkj.k iz"kkldh; foHkkx ds

izLrko ij vlgefr O;Dr dh xbZ gS]^^ ftldh lwpuk

dk;kZy;hu i= dzekad [email protected] ¼lk½ [email protected]

[email protected] fnukad 24-07-2015 }kjk vkidks Hkh nh xbZ

gSA

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; Nrrhlx<+ fcykliqj }kjk

ikfjr fu.kZ; Order on Board fnukad 19-07-2021 ds

ifjizs{; esa vkidk vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq izkIr vH;kosnu

dk fu;eksa ds rgr iqu% ifj{k.kksijkar vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh

ik=rk u gksus ds dkj.k vekU; dj izdj.k uLrh fd;k

tkrk gSA lwpukFkZ laizsf'kr gSA "

4. The said impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.3.

This Court, at the outset, is of the opinion that the respondent no.3

has totally ignored the directions given by this Court in WPS No.

3324/2016. The respondent no.3 also seems to have not understood

the order passed by this Court or the authority knowingly and

deliberately with an intention to overreach the order of this Court has

passed the impugned order. Such an order is not expected from an

officer of the rank of Chief Engineer who is otherwise considered to

be an officer of high rank in the department and who is expected to

pass a reasoned order particularly when a decision has to be taken

on a direction given by this Court. In WPS No. 3324/2016 which was

disposed of on 19.07.2021, there was a specific direction by this

Court to the authority to conduct an enquiry as to the dependency

part and thereafter to take an appropriate decision.

5. A plain reading of the impugned order would show that there was no

enquiry whatsoever so far as the dependency part is concerned. The

entire impugned order seems to have been passed only based upon

the claim application filed by the petitioner herein. The intention for

remitting the matter by this Court to the department was to ascertain

whether the two brothers of petitioner were providing any financial

assistance to the petitioner, whether they were all staying together,

whether the two brothers had their own family and other

responsibilities and liabilities to take care of and thereafter to reach a

conclusion as to whether the claim of the petitioner would still be

rejected. Such an exercise is totally missing from the action on the

part of respondent no.3.

6. The State counsel was not in a position to give any clear justification

for the order so passed by the respondents particularly when this

High Court had already in WPS 3324/2016 directed the authorities to

pass a fresh order on due consideration of the findings from the

enquiry. In the absence of any such material available, this Court is

again inclined to allow the present writ petition and set aside/quash

the impugned order Annexure P-1.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order

Annexure P-1 is set aside/quashed and the matter stands further

remitted back to the respondent no.3 with a specific direction to

conduct an enquiry as regards the dependency aspect keeping in

view the judgment of this Court in WPS No. 3324/2016 and the

observations made therein and to pass a fresh decision within an

outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai