Navnit Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5302 Chatt

                                                                               Page 1 of 6

                                                                                      NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 3066 of 2020

      Navnit Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Saroj Mishra Aged About 30 Years By
       Caste Brahmin, R/o Ward No. 17, Near Circus Ground,
       Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
       (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
                                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                          Versus
      The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School
       Education Department, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,
       Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
      District Education Ofcer District Koriya,                           Chhattisgarh.,
       District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
      The Collector District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
       (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
                                                                        ---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

23/08/2022

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24-6-2020 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondents whereby application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment as his mother namely Smt. Savitri Sharma died in harness on 26-10-2018 who was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Aamakherva. The said application has been rejected on two counts ie., there was delay of 14 months in submitting the application and second is non-submission of required documents.

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. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that since petitioner's father is in government service, therefore, petitioner's claim has rightly been rejected by the respondent. The order passed by the respondent dated 24-6-2020 is legal, justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. This court vide order dated 14-7-2022 directed the State to file return and in pursuance of the said order, District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya who has passed the order has appeared before this court. Return has been filed by the

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

Stated contending that the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on two counts; one is delay and second is that he has not filed an affidavit demonstrating any family member of the deceased was in Government service.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that the father of the petitioner was working as clerk in Revenue Department at the relevant time of death of mother of the petitioner ie.. on 26-10- 2018. After the death of his mother, initially his wife was moved an application seeking grant of compassionate appointment to her which was rejected vide order dated 17-5-2019 (Annexure P/

2) on the ground that she is not covered by the policy. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24-6-2020 (Annexure P/4). He would further submit that the petitioner's father was working as clerk in revenue department, as per policy of the Government of Chhattisgarh if any family member is in Government service, then the dependent is not entitled to get compassionate appointment.

7. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner's mother died on 26- 10-2018 while in service, at the relevant time, father of the petitioner was in Government job, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered in terms of the policy of the Government which was prevailing at the time of death of the petitioner's mother ie the policy of 14-6-2013 as it is well settled position of law that compassionate appointment has to be examined as per policy prevailing at the time of death of government servant. Even, this court takes into consideration for delay, this submission cannot be considered as the respondents have assigned the reasons while rejecting application of the petitioner mainly on the ground that (I) the application has been filed with delay of 14 months and (ii) these reasons are sufficient to reject the application submitted by the

petitioner as the petitioner has also not rebutted the said allegations while contesting the case before this court.

8. In the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Division Bench in Pushpendrra Nath Sonesare (Supra) compassionate appointment was under consideration wherein Clause 8 of the policy has been provided which prohibits compassionate appointment, if one of the family members is earning member. Clause 8 of the policy of 2003 reads as under:-

^^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,xh**

9. From bare perusal of this clause, it is quite vivid that if a family member of Government servant is a earning member, then the dependent will not get the compassionate appointment as the family members who have suffered economic crisis on account of unfortunate death of Government servant, can be compensated by earning of other family member, so that the family member of the deceased government employee may overcome with sudden 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.

10. Now coming to the present facts of the case, it is quite clear that when the petitioner's mother expired, the father of the petitioner was in government job and he was getting sufficient salary to maintain, himself and the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot overcome with rider provided in the clause of the policy dated 24-6-2013.

11. The said issue whether one of the family members 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 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 2 Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 (decided on 23.02.2022)

the meaning of a family of the deceased employee."

12. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kevra Bai Markandey (Supra) and the petitioner's father 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

Raju