Vinay Suryavanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 337 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                           NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                 Writ Petition (S) No.234 of 2016

    Vinay Suryavanshi, aged 19 years, son of late Shri Sidh
    Ram Suryavanshi, resident of Kanhayiband, P.O. Sivni,
    Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir­Champa (CG)

                                                             ­­­­ Petitioner

                                  Versus

  1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of
     School Education, Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes,
     Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur (CG)

  2. The District Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir­
     Champa (CG)

                                                             ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.Somnath Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr.Jitendra Pali, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board (Through Video Conferencing)

20/1/2022

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated

10.7.2015 (Annexure P­3) by which the petitioner's

application for consideration and grant of compassionate

appointment has been rejected / returned by respondent

No.2 finding no merit.

2. The petitioner's father Shri Sidh Ram Suryavanshi while

working as Headmaster in Government Primary School,

Bhatapara, Naila died in harness on 24.6.2009. The

petitioner made an application for compassionate

application in prescribed form on 17.9.2009, but he was

minor at that time. Thereafter again on 4.7.2015 (Annexure

P­2) he filed an application for compassionate appointment

stating that at the time of death of his father on

24.6.2009 he was minor aged about 14 years and now he has

become major and passed 12th examination. Therefore, he be

considered and granted compassionate appointment. The

District Education Officer, Janjgir­Champa/respondent No.2

herein returned / rejected the application stating inter­

alia that at the time of death of his father, the policy

dated 10.6.2003 was applicable and in that policy, there

was no provision for grant of compassionate appointment

after the dependent of the Government servant becomes

major and three years period is also prescribed for

disposal of the said application, which has called in

question by way of this writ petition.

3. Return has been filed by the respondents/State stating

inter­alia that the petitioner was minor at the time of

death of his father and he made an application on 4.7.2015

after six years from the date of death of his father and

according to the circular dated 10.6.2003, there is no

provision for filing application for claiming appointment

on compassionate ground after attaining the age of

majority by dependent of the deceased Government servant

and there is specific provision to decide the matter

within three years as per Annexure R­1 and as such, the

petitioner's application has rightly been rejected. It has

also been stated that compassionate appointment is not a

vested right, which can be enforced at any point of time.

The object is to assist the family to tide over the

immediate financial crises after death of bread earner of

the family. In this case, the petitioner's family has

survived for last six years and crossed the financial

hardship, as such, his application has rightly been

rejected / returned and the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

4. Mr.Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that rejection of the petitioner's

application for compassionate appointment is contrary to

law. He would refer to the policy dated 14.6.2013

(Annexure P­5) and also refer to Clause 15 of the said

policy in which the procedure for grant of compassionate

appointment has given. He would also refer to sub Clause

(8) of Clause 15 of the policy dated 14.6.2013 in which

the procedure for obtaining the application from widow

etc. has been prescribed. He would rely upon the judgment

of this Court in Writ Appeal No.537 of 2015 (Pushpendra

Nath Sonesare v. State of Chhattisgarh and another),

decided on 10.9.2018 to support his claim.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy

Advocate General for the respondents/State, would submit

that in the instant case the policy dated 10.6.2003 would

be applicable and in that policy, there is no provision

for consideration and grant of compassionate appointment

after dependent attains the age of majority and further,

outer limit of three years has been prescribed for

deciding the application and furthermore, the petitioner

himself has filed the application immediately after death

of his father on 17.9.2009 when he was minor and

therefore, he cannot take the benefit of the circular

dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure P­5), which would be

inapplicable and as such, the decision of this Court in

Pushpendra Nath Sonesare (supra) would not be applicable

and since the petitioner's family has survived for last

more than 13 years now, therefore, his application has

rightly been rejected / returned by the competent

authority and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein­above and

also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner's father died in harness while

working as Headmaster in Government Primary School,

Bhatapara, Naila on 24.6.2009 and the petitioner applied

for compassionate appointment on 17.9.2009, but at that

time, he was undisputedly minor, which is also apparent

from his subsequent application dated 4.7.2015 (Annexure

P­2) in which he has clearly admitted that he was minor at

the time of death of his father, therefore, he was not

considered and appointed at that time and application

moved by the petitioner subsequently has been rejected on

the ground that as per policy dated 10.6.2003 he is not

eligible for compassionate appointment.

8. At the time of death of the petitioner's father, the

policy dated 10.6.2003 (Annexure R­1) was applicable. In

the said policy, there was no provision for considering

the application for compassionate appointment by the

dependent after he attains the age of majority if he was

minor at the time of death of Government servant.

Admittedly, the policy dated 10.6.2003 was applicable at

the time of death of the petitioner's father and

therefore, his application has rightly been rejected by

the competent authority and furthermore that the

petitioner made an application on 4.7.2015 when he became

major and survived for last six years from the date of

death of his father and since he has already survived and

crossed the financial crises and come out from the

financial hardship for last six years, the application for

compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by

respondent No.2.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of this Court in Pushpendra Nath Sonesare

(supra), in which this Court held as under:­

"5. From reading of Clause 9(2), it is evident that the State authorities themselves have created an obligation upon the Head of Department to send a copy of the application form, which is prescribed, alongwith the relevant guidelines to the family members of the deceased employee. If there is no eligible person capable of being appointed on compassionate ground, then even this information is required to be given to the Head of Department."

10. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the

partitioner on the basis of aforesaid judgment of this

Court is not available to the petitioner for more than one

reason, firstly, the petitioner himself has filed an

application claiming compassionate appointment on

17.9.2009 (Annexure P­1), but at that time he was minor,

which he has reiterated in the application dated 4.7.2015

(Annexure P­2) and as such, he was quite aware of the

opportunity to be made for taking compassionate

appointment and secondly, the policy dated 14.6.2013

(Annexure P­5) was not applicable and the policy dated

10.6.2003 (Annexure R­1) was applicable to the petitioner

and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any

benefit from the judgment of this Court in Pushpendra Nath

Sonesare (supra). Consequently, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the impugned order passed by

respondent No.2 rejecting / returning the petitioner's

application for compassionate appointment is strictly in

accordance with law. I do not find any merit in the writ

petition.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is

hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own

cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge B/-