Miss Purva Karsarpe vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5242 Chatt

                                                               Page 1 of 5

                                                                     NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPS No. 3189 of 2020

Miss Purva Karsarpe, D/o Late Mr. Tukaram Karsarpe, Aged About 19
Years, R/o H.N. Lig 53, Housing Board Colony Kanker (Thelkabod),
Post Kanker, Tahsil- Kanker, District- Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.)
                                                             --- Petitioner
                                 Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Skill Development,
      Technical Education and Employment Department, Mahanadi
      Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2.    Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical
      Education, Block 3, 3rd - 4th Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Naya
      Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                     --- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

18/08/2022

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 04.01.2020 & 25.02.2020 passed by the respondents whereby application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the count that at the time of death of petitioner's father, there was no policy to grant compassionate appointment after attaining majority and her mother is a government servant as per policy dated 10 th June, 2003 prevailing at the time of death of petitioner's father.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment as her father expired on 20.09.2010. He would further submit that at the time of submitting application for grant of compassionate appointment on 24.09.2018, the petitioner was major and the same has been rejected vide order dated 04.01.2020 on the count that wife of Tukaram Karsarpe is in

government job.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that case of the petitioner covers from the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Pushpendra Nath Sonesare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another1, wherein it has been held at paragraphs No. 8 & 9 as under:-

"8. On reading the provisions of Clause 9(1) and 9(2), it is evident that the reason for rejection which is said to be a delay of 5½ years is, therefore, beyond the ambit of guidelines issued by the State authorities. Not only that, there seems to be violation on their part when they failed to carry out their obligation for sending an application form to the family members of deceased employee or apprising them of their rights and obligations by providing guidelines in this regard.

9. In our opinion, therefore, filing of an application in the year 2008 soon after attainment of majority by the Appellant before the authorities cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The impugned order therefore dated 16.01.2009 which was Annexure P/1 to the writ application alongwith the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ application are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the competent authority of the State to take a fresh decision on merits, not on the basis of delay which was the reason for rejection of the claim of the Appellant. Such a decision must be taken by the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of certified copy of this order."

4. He would further submit that mother of the petitioner has remarried, therefore, case of the petitioner may be considered in light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in Pushpendrra Nath Sonesare (Supra).

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that since petitioner's mother is in government service, therefore, petitioner's claim has rightly been rejected by the respondent. The order passed by the respondent dated 04.01.2020 & 25.02.2020 are legal, justified and does not warrant any

1 Writ Appeal No. 537 of 2015 (Decided on 10.09.2018)

interference by this Court.

6. From facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Division Bench in Pushpendrra Nath Sonesare (Supra) does not deal with the issue whether if family member is in government service, then the dependent of deceased employee, is entitled to get compassionate appointment or not, has not been considered. The respondent while rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has considered both the grounds one is with regard to attain the age of majority by the dependent and government service of a family member. The policy of 2003 which is applicable at the time of death of petitioner's father, clause 8 of that policy also prohibits compassionate appointment, if one of the family member is earning member. Clause 8 of the policy of 2003 reads as under:-

"8. tgak ifjokj esa ,d dekus okyk fo|eku gks& e`rd "kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa ;fn iwoZ ls gh ifjokj dk dksbZ lnL; dekus okyk ekStwn gS ml fLFkfr esa ifjokj ds nwljs lnL;ksa dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr ugh nh tk,xhA"

7. From bare perusal of this clause, the object of the clause is that if a family member is earning member, then the family which has suffered sudden economical crises on account of unfortunate death of family member, can be compensated by earnings of other family member, so that the family of a deceased government servant may overcome with the financial crunch, as such, restriction to give compassionate appointment has been imposed. This is in conformity with the object behind for grant of compassionate appointment.

8. Now coming to the present facts of the case, mother of the petitioner is in government job and working as peon getting sufficient salary to maintain, even though as per contention of the petitioner that the petitioner's mother has done remarriage, this will not entitle the petitioner to get rid of the rider provided in

the clause 8 of the policy, therefore, order dated 04.01.2020 & 25.02.2020 (Annexure P/6) does not warrant any interference by this Court.

9. The said issue whether one of the family member is in government job, then dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to get compassionate appointment or not, has been examined by Hon'ble Division Bench in State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Kevra Bai Markandey & another 2, wherein it has been held at paragraph 8 & 9 as under:-

"8. The relevant scheme for compassionate appointment is contained in Consolidated Revised Instructions on Compassionate Appointment, 2013( for short, 'Scheme'). In WA No. 33 of 2022 decided on 18.02.2022 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Smt. Muniya Mukharjee), this Court analyzed the provisions contained under Clauses 5 and 6A of the Scheme and recorded as follows at paragraphs 15 & 16 :

"15. A perusal of clause 5 of the Scheme would goto show that it does not envisage that on the death of a married government servant, the parents of the government servant would be entitled to compassionate appointment. It is the spouse of the deceased government employee who is given the first preference and then the son/adopted son, and so on and so forth in the sequence as laid down in clause 5. As only the dependent family members of the deceased government servant as indicated in clause 5 of the Scheme are eligible for compassionate appointment, in absence of definition of family in the Scheme, it will be reasonable to hold that the relations of the deceased government employee as mentioned in clause 5 would constitute the family of the deceased government employee. If any of the family members as shown in clause 5 of the Scheme is already in government service, in terms of clause 6(A), the other members of the family as mentioned in clause 5 would not be eligible for compassionate appointment.

16. Explanation to clause 6A does not in any way relate to family of the deceased married 2 Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (decided on 23.02.2022)

government servant. What is the relevance of the explanation is also not discernible inasmuch as when the scheme had excluded dependent parents for being considered for compassionate appointment, there is no purpose in describing who are the dependents of the deceased married government servant."

9. Since another son of the deceased employee is already in government service, such son, who is in the government employment,would come within the meaning of a family of the deceased employee."

10. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kevra Bai Markandey (Supra) and the petitioner's mother is in government service, order of rejection of application for compassionate appointment is affirmed and the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun