Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Pushpa Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 July, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 4487 of 2022
Smt. Pushpa Verma, W/o. Late Ramakant Verma, aged about
38, R/o Village-Vatgaon, Thana-Palari, Distt.- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Panchayat and
Rural Development, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Nava Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Collector, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
3. District Education Officer, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District-
Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.)
5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chhura, District
Gariyaband (C.G.)
6. Block Education Officer, Block - Chhura, District- Gariyaband
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate
For Respondents : Ms. Hameeda Siddiqui, Additional A. G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Judgment on Board
05.07.2022
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner's husband namely Ramakant Verma has expired
on 01.05.2015 and, thereafter, the petitioner filed an application
for grant of compassionate appointment before respondent No.
5- Chief Executive Officer on 8.6.2015 and in turn the
respondent No. 5 has forwarded the same to respondent No. 6 -
Block Education Officer, after a very long time i.e. on 31.8.2018,
respondent No. 3- District Education Officer, District Gariaband
wrote a letter to respondent No. 6, but till date no final order has
been passed. According to him, the application for grant of
compassionate appointment to the petitioner is still pending.
2. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State
of Orissa & others reported in 2022 SCC Online 684 has held
that application for compassionate appointment should be
considered and decided by the concerned department
expeditiously and while discussing the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate ground held as under :
"9. 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 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.
We are constrained to direct as above as we have
found that in several cases, applications for appointment on
compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are
kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants
in several cases have to approach the concerned High
Court seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of
their applications. Even after such a direction is issued,
frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the
applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge
the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to
pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the
family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and
in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the
authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications
made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After
several years or are not considered at tll at the instant case.
If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate
grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the
rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that
such applications are considered well in time and not in a
tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly
two decades the controversy regarding the application
made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This
consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of
granting compassionate appointment on the death of the
employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that
such applications must be considered at an earliest point of
time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and
based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be
rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons
extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the
object and purpose of appointment on compassionate
grounds can be achieved."
3. In view of the foregoing discussion and In light of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the matter of Malaya Nanda Sethy
(supra), the concerned State Authority shall make all the
endeavour to consider and decide the petitioner's application for
compassionate appointment in accordance with law
expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt / production of certified copy of this order.
4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally
disposed off.
Sd-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Amita
