Chattisgarh High Court
Domendra Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 800 of 2022
• Domendra Thakur S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Thakur Aged About 30 Years
R/o M I G, Duplex 577, Housing Board, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Police Station
Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Employment
And Training, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi,
Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indravati Bhavan, Police
Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Principal, Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.) Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey with Ms. Deepika
Sannat, Advocates
For State : Shri Amrito Das, Addl. Adv. Gen.
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
(Through Video Conferencing)
15/02/2022
1. The petitioner herein has filed the writ petition seeking appropriate
direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 30/06/2021
filed by him for granting him compassionate appointment on the post of
Training Officer, Class - III at the earliest.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father namely Radheyshyam
Thakur, while working on the post of Training Officer, Class-III died in harness
on 15/04/2021 and though the petitioner is a degree holder i.e. Bachelor of
Engineering (Mechanical), yet respondent No.2 has sought his consent for his
compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Grade - III or any other
post of Class IV vide letter dated 26/06/2021, to which, the petitioner
submitted representation on 30/06/2021 that he is a degree holder of B.E.
(Mechanical), therefore, he be granted compassionate appointment on the
post of Class -III post, which has not been considered and decided.
Therefore, it has been pleaded that appropriate direction be issued to
respondent No.2 to consider him for grant of compassionate appointment on
the post of Training Officer, Class - III.
3. Shri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of Training Officer,
Class-III as he is a degree holder i.e. B.E. (Mechanical) and entitled for the
said post. It is submitted that respondent No.2 may be directed to consider
and his representation for compassionate appointment on the post of Training
Officer, Class - III.
4. Shri Amrito Das, Addl. Adv. Gen. appearing for the State would submit
that the compassionate appointment has to be granted as per applicable
policy and the petitioner cannot claim appointment on the higher post which is
not permissible in the policy, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein above and also went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
6. A careful perusal of the order (Annexure P/3) dated 26/06/2021 would
show that the petitioner has made an application for compassionate
appointment on the post of Training Officer which has been replied by
respondent No.2 that as per circular dated 31/05/2019 and Chhattisgarh
Audyogik Prashikshan (Araajpatrit) Tritiya Shreni Seva Bharti Niyam, 2014,
compassionate appointment cannot be granted on the post of Training Officer,
Class - III and sought consent for his appointment on the post of Assistant
Grade - III or any other post of Class - IV which will be processed in
accordance with the rules but the petitioner has not given any consent and as
such, the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on the post of
Training Officer but according to letter dated 26/06/2021, the petitioner is not
eligible for compassionate appointment on the said post.
7. It would be appropriate to notice pertinent decision in this regard at this
stage.
7.1 In the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali (1994) 4
SCC 448), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once the
person is considered and appointed against the compassionate ground as
per scheme, he cannot be considered again as right to make appointment on
compassionate ground stood exhausted. Para 15 of the report states as
under:-
"15. ......In fact, the respondent did not object to his
appointment as a clerk and his claim for consideration
for the post of teacher was one year after his
appointment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate
ground as per the scheme had been completed. The
claim for appointment as Inspector was never made
earlier. The High Court without even analysing the
circumstances under which the seven persons
mentioned in its judgment came to be appointed as
Police Officers (ASI or Inspector), straight away has
chosen to conclude that there was discrimination. We
are not in a position to appreciate this line of
reasoning...."
(7.2) In the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4
SCC 138, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while highlighting the object
of granting compassionate appointment, have held as under:-
"The object is not to give a member of such family a
post much less a post for host held by deceased."
(7.3) Their Lordships further observed pertinently in the aforesaid case
(supra) as under:-
"If the dependent of deceased employee finds it below
his dignity to accept the post offerred, he is free not to
do so. The post is not offerred to cater to his status, but
to see the family through the economic calamity."
(7.4) Later on, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560,
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court has clearly held that dependents
having accepted the appointment as LDC on compassionate ground,
therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate
ground was consummated and no further consideration on compassionate
ground would ever arise, otherwise it would e a case of "endless
compassion". Para 8 the report states as under:-
"8. Admittedly, the respondent's father died in harness
while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch)
on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an application on 8-
4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground
as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of
vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was
appointed on the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-
1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore,
the right to be considered for the appointment on
compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it
would be a case of "endless compassion". Eligibility
selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-
called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High
Court was persuaded to the view that direction be
issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no
application to the facts of this case."
(7.5) Later on, in I.G. (Karmik) and others Vs. Prahlad Mani Tripathi, (2007
6 SCC 162, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held once the
right is exhausted, any further ore second consideration for the higher post on
the ground of compassion would not arise.
8. Since the respondents, vide impugned letter (Annexure P/3) held that
the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment on the post of
Training Officer, Class - III, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by
directing respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner / his
representation for the post of Training Officer, Class - III and even otherwise
the petitioner has not questioned the impugned letter dated 26/06/2021 in this
petition.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, this order will not bar
the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant
Grade - III and Class - IV as held by respondent No.2 vide memo dated
26/06/2021. No order as to cost (s).
Sd/-
( Sanjay K. Agrawal )
Judge
Deepti
