Ku. Lileshwari Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2539 Chatt

                                        1



                                                                                    NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WPS No. 5163 of 2021
     Ku. Lileshwari Thakur D/o Late Geeta Prasad Thakur Aged About 28 Years
     R/o Village Atharahgudi, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

                                                                       ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department,
     Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh

  2. The Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Raipur, District Raipur
     Chhattisgarh

  3. The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division, Balodabazar, District
     Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

                                                                     ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.

     For State                  :       Ms. Binu Sharma, PL

                    Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                               Order on Board
24.09.2021

1. Aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 04.03.2021,

the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Vide the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment has been rejected. The rejection was on

the ground that brother of the petitioner was found to be in

government employment.

3. Contention of the petitioner is that her father was working on the post

of Deputy Forest Ranger who died in harness on 17.01.2020. On the

date of death of the deceased was survived by widow and three

children including the petitoner. Therefore, apart from the petitioner,

there was one more brother and sister of the petitioner. The sister of

the petitioner being an unmarried and was also dependent upon the

deceased along with the petitioner and the widow. Contention of the

petitioner is that on the date of the death and thereafter, the brother of

the petitioner was not providing financial sustenance to the

petitioner's family for sustenance as he himself has his own wife and

children to take care of. It is the further contention of the petitioner

that on the date of death, it was the only petitioner and her sister

along with their mother who were totally dependent on the deceased

and therefore they have moved an application for compassionate

appointment which stood rejected. Respondents have decided the

application without any sort of enquiry on the dependency aspect and

have in a mechanical manner rejected the same.

4. It was the further contention of the petitioner that the brother was

living separately and is in government employment was staying along

with his wife and children away from the petitioner and her sister

cannot be accepted to be a permanent source of income to the

petitioner along with her sister and widowed mother for sustenance.

At least to this extent respondent authorities ought to have conducted

an enquiry and thereafter ought to have reached to a decision.

5. The State counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submits that

since the elder brother of the petitioner is already in government

employment, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment the

candidature of the applicant has been rejected and in the absence of any

challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent cannot be said to be

bad.

6. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of a recent judgement

passed by this Court in WPS No. 1025/2020 (Nandini Pradhan Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Others). The said Writ Petition was allowed on 18.2.2020

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 wherein 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, firstly

upon the deceased employee and secondly whether the brother of

Petitioner who is in government employment is providing any assistance to

Petitioner or not and also whether those brothers have married and have

their own family or not and whether they are staying along with Petitioner or

not. These are the facts which ought to have been verified while rejecting

the claim of Petitioner in the present Writ Petition and which does not seem

to have been considered by the authorities and they simply passed an

order on hypertechnical ground specifically dis-entitling the Petitioner for

claiming compassionate appointment in the event of family members of

deceased employee being in government employment.

7. 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.

8. In the case of Sulochana (supra), in paragraph 9, this Court dealing with

the said issue has held 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."

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 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. Considering the fact that there is an elder brother in government

employment, what needs to be verified is whether the said person can be

brought within the ambit of dependent. Whether the said person can be

compelled to take care of the petitioner along with his sister and his

widowed mother particularly when he has his own family and children to

take care of and he has been living separately altogether. It would had

been a different case if the government employee i.e. the elder brother to

the petitioner could have been unmarried and was living along with the

petitioner which could have forced us to infer that he was there for

sustenance of the family

11. In the absence of any such situation, the policy of the State Govt. to that

extent so far as compassionate appointment is concerned, has to be read

down to be decided only after an enquiry which needs to be conducted by

the respondents, ascertaining the dependency part and also in respect of

any support which the petitioner is getting from the elder brother. For the

aforesaid reason, the impugned order needs to be reconsidered and the

rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by strict interpretation of the

policy would not be sustainable.

12. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated

04.03.2021 deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The authorities are

directed to re-consider the claim of the Petitioner afresh taking into

consideration the observations made by this Court in the preceding

paragraphs and take afresh decision at the earliest within an outer limit of

90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

13. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

Rohit