Chattisgarh High Court
Mahendra Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 26 August, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 4761 of 2014
Mahendra Singh, S/o Shri Sabal Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Bakalo P.S. Premnagar, Tahsil Premnagar, District-
Surajpur (C.G.)
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat and
Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department,
Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Katghora,
District- Korba (C.G.)
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
26/08/2022
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment on the count that his father who was
working as Sahayak Antrik Lekha Parikshan Avam Kararopan
Adhikari with respondent No. 3, expired on 07.09.2011. After
death of petitioner's father, the petitioner moved an application
for grant of compassionate appointment on 05.12.2011
(Annexure P/4), which has not been decided by the authorities,
therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
2. Learned State counsel has filed its return, in which, they have
stated that the case of the petitioner has been considered in
terms of policy dated 14.06.2013 according to which, if any family
member is in government job, the dependent of his family is not
entitled to get compassionate appointment.
3. From records, it is quite clear that petitioner's father expired on
07.09.2011, therefore, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa &
others1, case of the petitioner should be considered at the time
of death of petitioner's father, wherein, it has been held at
paragraph 7, 15 & 16 as under:-
"7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has heavily relied upon the decisions of this
Court in the cases of Indian Bank and others v.
Promila and another (2020) 2 SCC 729; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496;
decision of this Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi (Civil Appeal No.
6903/2021, decided on 18.11.2021); another decision
of this Court in the case of The Chief General
Manager, Telecommunication, BSNL v. Vidya Prasad
(Civil Appeal No. 6019/2021, decided on 28.09.2021);
and the latest decision of this Court in the case of
The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education
(Primary) and others v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264, in support of his
submission that the relevant scheme and/or the rules
prevalent at the time of death of the employee, who
died in harness, and/or at the time of submitting the
application is required to be considered and not the
amended rules prevalent at the time of consideration
of the application.
15. In view of the above discussion and for the
reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the appellant for appointment on
compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules as per
his original application made in July, 2010 and if he is
otherwise found eligible to appoint him on the post of
Junior Clerk. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of four weeks from today.
However, it is observed that the appellant shall be
entitled to all the benefits from the date of his
appointment only. The present appeal is accordingly
allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
16. Before parting with the present order, we are
constrained to observe that considering the object
and purpose of appointment on compassionate
grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may
be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684
untimely death of the employee while in service and
the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of
financial assistance to the family of the deceased
consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities
must consider and decide such applications for
appointment on compassionate grounds as per the
policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a
period of six months from the date of submission of
such completed applications."
4. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider
petitioner's case for grant of compassionate appointment shall be
considered by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance
with the policy prevailing at the time of death of deceased- Smt.
Madhu Verma. It is also directed that the respondent authorities
while deciding the case of the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment should adhere the time period as
provided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Malay Nanda Sethy
(Supra).
5. From the above stated legal position, it is clear that the rejection
of the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate
appointment as per the policy dated 14.06.2013 is erroneous
application of law. Law is well settled that grant of compassionate
appointment should be considered as per the policy prevailing at
the time when government servant expired.
6. In the present case, petitioner's father expired on 07.09.2011,
therefore, case of the petitioner has to be examined in terms of
policy dated 10.06.2003 and the subsequent amendment in the
policy, if any carried out before death of petitioner's father.
7. In view of the above stated legal position, the respondents are
directed to examine the case of the petitioner as per the policy
prevailing at the time of death of the petitioner's father i.e. policy
dated 10.06.2003.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition is partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
