Smt. Meena Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6165 Chatt

                                                              Page 1 of 9

                                                                    AFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        WPS No. 759 of 2020
                      Reserved on : 08.07.2022
                      Delivered on : 10.10.2022
      Smt. Meena Sidar, D/o Late Amritlal Sidar, W/o Jageshwar Sidar,
      aged about 35 years, R/o Village- Kalmi (Dipapara), Post-
      Dhanangar, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Petitioner

                               Versus
1.   State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Energy and
     Power Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur
     (C.G.)
2.   Chairman, C.G. State Power Transmission Company Limited,
     Danganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3.   Chief Engineer, C.S.P.T.C.L., Bilaspur Division, Tifra, District-
     Bilaspur (C.G.)
4.   Additional Chief Engineer, C.S.P.T.C.L., Quarter No. C/8-11 (First
     Floor), Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.), Pin- 492013.
5.   Superintending Engineer, C.S.P.T.C.L., Bilaspur Division, Tifra,
     District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
6.   Executive Engineer, C.S.P.T.C.L., Sub-Bilaspur, Tifra, District-
     Bilaspur (C.G.)
7.   Executive Engineer, C.S.P.T.C.L., Raigarh Division, Kotra Road
     Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                         Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate.

For State/ Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer.

For Respondents No. 2 to 7 : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. ORDER

1. The petitioner who is married daughter of deceased- Amritlal

Sidar, has filed present writ petition challenging the order dated

16.12.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 1 by

which the petitioner's representation for grant of compassionate

appointment has been rejected on the count that as per policy

for grant of compassionate appointment dated 28.02.2004,

application should have been filed within one year and since the

application has been filed after the limitation provided under the

circular, the same cannot be considered and accordingly, it has

been rejected.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner,

who is married daughter of deceased- Amritlal Sidar working as

Attendant Grade-II in the office of Executive Engineer, Sub-

Station, Bilaspur and posted at Raigarh, expired on 29.10.2007.

Thereafter, his son applied for grant of compassionate

appointment on 02.01.2013 by submitting his application in the

office of Executive Engineer, Sub-Centre, Chhattisgarh State

Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur. During pendency

of the application, brother of the petitioner namely Shankarlal

Sidar also expired on 09.04.2015, thereafter, she has filed the

application for grant of compassionate appointment on

04.09.2019. It has also been contended that earlier the petitioner

has filed WPS No. 8473/2019 before this Court as her

application for grant of compassionate appointment was pending

before the respondent authorities. This Court considering the

submission has directed respondent No. 2 to decide the

representation of the petitioner for grant of compassionate

appointment within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt

of copy of the order. In pursuance of the direction issued by this

Court, respondent No. 4 has decided the representation and

rejected the same for the reason that the application is belated

one.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier there

was no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to a

married daughter and this provision has been inserted w.e.f.

29.08.2016 by the State Government in view of judgment passed

by this Court in case of Chandrani Sinha Vs. Chhattisgarh

State Electricity Holding Company Limited, Daganiya,

Raipur (C.G.) & another1 as well as the judgment passed by

Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 525

of 2016 decided on 21.11.2016 thereafter she filed the

application for grant of compassionate application, as such, it

cannot be said that the application for grant of compassionate

appointment is belated one. He would further submit that

rejection of the application for alleged delay is against the law

laid down by this Court in case of Smt. Bhunbaisahu Vs. State2

and would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated

16.12.2019 (Annexure P/1).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 7

has filed their return, in which, they have narrated the limitation

period provided in the circular dated 28.02.2004 which provides

one year of limitation for applying for grant of compassionate

appointment. It has been further contended that earlier

petitioner's brother has applied for grant of compassionate

1 2016 (Labour and Industrial Cases) 4527 2 2002 (1) CGLJ 257

appointment on 19.03.2013, which has been returned by the

Executive Engineer, Sub-Station, Division-Bilaspur vide memo

dated 10.03.2014, as it was incomplete form, wherein it has

been mentioned that when deceased Amritlal's wife Smt. Gayatri

Bai appeared for taking retiral dues, it was informed her about

the policy of compassionate appointment, but she has shown

unwillingness to get the compassionate appointment. It has also

been mentioned in the said memo dated 10.03.2014 that none of

the family members has submitted application for grant of

compassionate appointment within one year, thereafter, the

petitioner's brother application was rejected as the deceased-

Amritlal expired on 29.10.2007 and the application for grant of

compassionate appointment was submitted after 5 years & 6

months, as such, the application is delayed one and on this

count alone, the same was rejected on 14.10.2015 after death of

Shankarlal on 09.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed

application for grant of compassionate appointment, which was

returned to the petitioner on 18.09.2019 on the count that the

petitioner's brother's application was delayed one and

accordingly the application was returned back to the petitioner.

5. It has been further contended by the respondents that the

petitioner concealing the fact that on 18.09.2019, the application

has been returned back to the petitioner, has filed the petition

bearing WPS No. 8473/2019, wherein this Court vide its order

dated 16.10.2019 has directed the respondents to decide the

application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate

appointment. The same has been rejected on 16.12.2019 by the

respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit

that the application has been rightly rejected by the respondents

and in support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.

Prakash Chandra & others3 and would pray for dismissal of the

petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents annexed with the petition with utmost satisfaction.

7. From the facts, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's father

expired on 29.10.2007 and the application for grant of

compassionate appointment by petitioner's brother was filed on

19.03.2013 after lapse of 5 years and 6 months, which is itself

barred by limitation and thereafter, the present petitioner has

filed the application for grant of compassionate appointment on

02.07.2019, which was also delayed by about 4 years of

rejection of earlier application of petitioner's brother on

14.10.2015 though the application was rejected after death of

petitioner's brother. This Court cannot loss sight of the fact that

the petitioner was married on 16.02.2005 before death of

deceased- Amritlal, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner

was dependent upon the earning of her father. Whether the

married daughter is dependent or not has been recently

examined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of

Maharashtra & another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate

3 2019 (4) SCC 285

(Since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli) 4 wherein it

has been held at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under:-

"7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.

8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable."

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation

Limited & others Vs. Nirval Singh5, has held at paragraph Nos.

4    Civil Appeal No. 6938/2022 (Decided on 30.09.2022)


5    (2019) 6 SCC 774


     7 to 9 as under:-

"7. In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of the respondent.

8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same.

9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of the new policy which reads as under:

"The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of instructions. The cases, where compassionate employment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite relief, in lieu compassionate employment, shall be granted as per above policy instructions."."

9. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the

petitioner's father expired on 29.10.2007 and she has filed the

present writ petition after about 13 years and the fact that the

petitioner is a married daughter before death of deceased, as

such, she cannot be said to be dependent on the earning of her

father. As such, the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of

this Court in case of Chandrani Sinha (Supra) decided on

07.09.2016, wherein this Court has directed the respondent to

provide clause in the policy to grant compassionate appointment

to married daughter subject to fulfilling the condition of policy. So

far as this legal preposition held by the Coordinate and the

Division Bench is concerned, it is not in dispute, but this Court

has to examine in the given facts and circumstances, whether

the petitioner who is married daughter, is entitled to get

compassionate appointment or not. The facts reflected from the

record that the petitioner is married before death of her father, as

such, she cannot be dependent on earning of her father and

coupled with the fact that she has filed the present application for

grant of compassionate appointment after 12 years of death of

her father. These grounds clearly dis-entitle the petitioner to get

compassionate appointment as per the law laid down by Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in Ms. Madhuri (Supra) & Nirval Singh

(Supra) and also that the petitioner's application for grant of

compassionate appointment has been filed after 12 years of her

father's death before the respondents, therefore, the very object

of providing compassionate appointment to ameliorate the

condition of the family at the relevant of time, is already achieved

as the family is already survived for such a long period,

therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to get compassionate

appointment after lapse of about 15 years of death of her father.

Hon'ble the Supreme in very recent judgment has examined the

effect of survival of deceased family member after inordinate

period of 14/24 years in case of Fertilizers and Chemicals

Travancore Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B. 6 has held at

paragraph 9 as under:-

"9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and 5 leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into

6 Civil Appeal No. 6958 of 2022 (Decided on 30.09.2022)

consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

9.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided. 9.2. Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a serious error in directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable."

10. Considering the entire material, facts on record, looking to the

facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any

irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 16.12.2019

(Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner's application for grant of

compassionate appointment has been rejected.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to

be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun