Chattisgarh High Court

Annu Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 October, 2021

                                        1

                                                                            NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          WPS No. 5949 of 2021
    Annu Pandey D/o Late Ashutosh Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Ihdp
     Awas, Block -A, House No. 08, Near Bagdai Mandir, Khamtarai,
     Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.            ---- Petitioner
                                   Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
      Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
      Raipur Chhattisgarh.
   2. Senior Superintendent        Of   Police,     Bilaspur,    District Bilaspur
      Chhattisgarh.                                             ---- Respondents

_____________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner: : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Adv.

For the State/Respondents: : Shri Neeraj Pradhan, P.L.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board 27.10.2021

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

propriety of the order dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by

Respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the application filed by the petitioner

seeking appointment on compassionate ground owing to the sad

demise of her father-in-law, namely, Ram Sanehi Pandey has been

rejected.

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the father in law of the

petitioner namely, Shri Ram Sanehi Pandey, who was working as

constable at Police Line, Bilaspur died in harness on 15.09.2020. Said

Ram Sanehi Pandey had two sons namely, Abhishek Pandey and

Ashutosh Pandey but both have also died pre-deceased to him. It

appears further that the younger son of deceased Ram Sanehi Pandey,

namely, Abhishek Pandey was posted as constable and died on

18.06.2019 and thereafter his wife Smt. Mistri Pandey was given

appointment on compassionate ground on 30.07.2020 and, according

to the Petitioner, she is living separately and not assisting the family of

the petitioner. Further contention of the petitioner is that her husband

was pre-deceased to her father-in-law namely, Ram Sanehi Pandey

and, therefore, immediately upon the death of her father in law, she

applied for her appointment on compassionate ground on 12.07.2021,

but was, however, rejected by the concerned Authority on the ground

that the widow of the petitioner's husband's brother namely Smt. Mistri

Pandey was already in government job and as per the policy of

compassionate appointment, the claim for compassionate appointment

would not be considered if there is already somebody who is in

government employment in the family of the claimants. While observing

as such the petitioner's application seeking her appointment on

compassionate ground has been refused which has been questioned

herein mainly on the ground that the order impugned has been passed

without considering her dependency upon her father-in-law, therefore, it

is contended by Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner that the order impugned deserves to be set aside. In support,

he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the

matter of Sanath Kumar Shyamale Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and

others, passed on 09.02.2021 in WPS No. 407 of 2021.

3. On the other hand, Shri Pradhan, while supporting the order impugned

submits that since one of the members, namely, Smt. Mistri, widow of

petitioner's husband's brother was already in government job, the order

impugned, therefore, does not require to be interfered, as per the

Government Policy.

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

papers annexed with this petition carefully.

5. It is true that Smt. Mistri Pandey who was the widow of her husband's

brother namely Abhishek Pandey was given an appointment on

compassionate ground on 30.07.2020 on account of the death of her

husband who was also performing his duties as a constable. It appears

further that both sons of Ram Sanehi Pandey, the father-in-law of the

petitioner has died and according to the averments made in the petition,

said Smt. Mistri Pandey started living separately after obtaining her

compassionate appointment without providing any financial support to

the Petitioner.

6. It thus, appears that after the death of her husband, the petitioner was

completely dependent upon her father-in-law namely, Ram Sanehi

Pandey and upon the death of him, application as made by the

petitioner seeking of her appointment on compassionate ground has

been refused merely on the ground that one of the family members is in

Government Employment, however, no inquiry with regard to the

dependency of the petitioner as to whether she was dependant upon

her father-in-law upon the sad demise of her husband, who was pre-

deceased to his father, was considered prior to passing of the said

order impugned, dated 23.09.2021.

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

passed by this Court in WPS No. 1025/2020 (Nandini Pradhan 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 in WPS No. 2728/2017 decided on 23.11.2017.

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 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 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. Consequently, the impugned order dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P-1)