Chattisgarh High Court
Yogesh Kumar Sahu vs Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank And Ors on 20 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 2542 of 2012
Order reserved on : 09/11/2022
Order Pronounced on: 20/01/2023
Yogesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Ramnath Sahu, Aged about 25
years, R/o Village & Post - Pacheda, Tahsil & District -
Mahasamund C.G.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, through its Chairman, 15, Recreation
Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur District- Raipur C.G.
2. Managing Director (Administration), Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank,
15 Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur District- Raipur
C.G.
3. Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Branch - Panduka,
Tehsil - Gariyaband, District- Raipur C.G.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Judge
CAV Order
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India against the inaction of respondents by
which respondent authorities have denied the claim of the
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and he is
directed to accept the ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of
appointment on compassionate ground.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's father late Ram Nath
Sahu was an employee of the respondent Bank and was working
as clerk-cum-cashier in Branch- Panduka, Tehsil Gariyaband, who
expired on 23.12.2005 during the course of employment. After the
death of his father, the petitioner has applied for compassionate
appointment before the respondents in accordance with the
scheme for compassionate appointment. After several requests
instead of considering his request for compassionate
appointment, it was informed by the authority that as per the
scheme, ex-gratia amount will be paid to the family members in
lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds in C.G. Gramin
Bank. As such, being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action
of respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing number
WP(S) No.4825 of 2008 before this Court challenging the letter
dated 25.05.2007 whereby petitioner was asked to accept the ex-
gratia amount and further for providing compassionate
appointment. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with
direction to the respondent authorities to consider application of
the petitioner in accordance with the prevailing law and policy, on
its own merits as expeditiously as possible. Petitioner has
submitted all the relevant information necessary for consideration
of his application before the respondent authorities but finally
even after submission of all the requisite information before the
authorities, the respondents passed the impugned order dated
21.02.2012 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the
ground that the case of the petitioner was not found eligible for
entitlement of compassionate appointment and dismissed the
application of the petitioner dated 15.06.2006, therefore, petitioner
has filed this petition and sought following reliefs:-
10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the
entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the
impugned orders dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) and
03.02.2012 passed by the respondent authority, whereby the
application of the petitioner was rejected.
10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents No.1 & 2 to provide compassionate appointment
to the petitioner in accordance with law.
10.4 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem it fit
& proper and may also be awarded to the petitioner including
the cost of the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the
respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory.
Respondent authorities even admitted the fact before this Court that
petitioner's case would be considered in accordance with policy
prevalent at the time of making application, even then his candidature
has been rejected without any reason on baseless counts. Petitioner's
father expired on 23.12.2005 and new policy for grant of ex-gratia in
lieu of compassionate appointment has been introduced later on after
the death of petitioner's father but the respondent authorities have
rejected the application of the petitioner arbitrarily without any reason
though as per the scheme, petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria and
he is entitled for being appointed in accordance with the scheme for
compassionate appointment. The scheme for compassionate
appointment dated 12.10.1998 has not at all been applied by the
respondents in the present case. As per the scheme of
compassionate appointment, the petitioner is eligible for being
appointed on compassionate basis but by an unreasoned order his
claim has been rejected. It is further submitted that Respondent bank
neither assessed the financial condition of the petitioner in
accordance with the Scheme nor the impugned order reflects that the
case of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the scheme.
The impugned order nowhere mentions as to whether any
determination of financial status of the deceased employee has been
made nor the same discloses the fact that under what consideration,
the case of the petitioner was found for being rejected. At the time of
death of the father of the petitioner, the scheme dated 18.05.2007
was not in force and as such before this Court, respondents had
submitted that petitioner's case will be considered in accordance with
the policy prevailing at the time of application, even then again the
respondent authorities have rejected the application without any
ground. The action of the respondents is discriminatory and illegal as
the respondents have given compassionate appointment to many
persons in the year 2006. He further submits that all the requisite
information and certificates have already been submitted before the
respondent authorities within time as per the direction of this Court
but the respondent authorities delayed the matter on their part and
ultimately rejected the case of the petitioner. The action of the
respondent Bank in not providing the compassionate employment to
the petitioner is without any rhyme or reason whereas the entire
information has already been submitted before the authorities. In
support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Amit Shrivas
reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496, Indian Bank & others Vs. Promila &
another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729, Krishnamurthy S. Setlur
(dead) by LRs. Vs. O.V. Narasimha Setty & others reported in
(2007) 3 SCC 569, Secretary to Govt. Department of Education
(Primary) & others Vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa reported in
2021 SCC Online SC 1264, State of Himachal Pradesh & Another
Vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, State Bank of
India & others Vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari reported in (2019) 5 SCC
600, State Bank of India & another Vs. Raj Kumar reported in
(2010) 11 SCC 661, MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh
reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 and Canara Bank & another Vs. M.
Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank
submits that by staff circular No. 151 dated 29.01.1988 (Annexure
R-1), the Bank for the first time framed a scheme for
compassionate appointment to the dependants of employees of
the Bank who die while in service. The scheme vide Annexure R-1
was replaced by scheme vide staff circular dated 15.01.1999
(Annexure R-2) which came into effect from 12.10.1998 and in
this circular, the condition of analysis of financial condition of the
petitioner was added to this scheme vide circular dated
31.03.2000 (Annexure R-3) and after that by staff circular dated
11.08.2004, it was clarified that by Annexure- R-3, the condition of
financial analysis has been added not to Annexure R-2 but to
Annexure R-1. Circular dated 11.08.2004 is Annexure R-4, thus
1988 scheme vide annexure R-1 read with condition of financial
analysis became applicable in matters of compassionate
appointment with effect from 11.08.2004. Thus, right from
12.10.1998, the condition of financial analysis has been a part of
the scheme for compassionate appointment. The application of
the petitioner was rejected on reasonable ground. It was found
that the deceased at the time of his death was drawing monthly
salary at the rate of Rs.10359.25/- 50% whereof comes to
Rs.5179.62/-. It was also found that the monthly income of the
family after the death of deceased comes to Rs.5872/- per month.
Hence, it was found that the deceased did not die in penury and
the family had sufficient income even after the death of the
deceased. Hence, it was not a fit case for grant of compassionate
appointment. The entire exercise as above will be depicted clearly
by the proceedings of the Board dated 03.02.2012 with the
recommendation made by the Manager Personnel and Chief
Manager Personnel which is annexed herewith as Annexure R-5.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment deserves to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed
on this Court's order dated 18.10.2022 passed in WP(S) No. 1685
of 2014 (Gendram Baghel Vs. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank &
others).
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. The Court's order dated 04.05.2011 passed in WPS No. 4825 of
2008 is as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the very outset, Shri Verma, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the respondents, submits that the policy
prevalent at the time of making of application for grant of
compassionate appointment would be applicable for
consideration of the application.
3. In view of that, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the
dispute. However, the respondent authorities may consider the
application of the petitioner in accordance with the prevailing
law and policy, as aforestated, on its own merits and pass
order, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period
of four weeks, in view of the fact that the application is for
grant of compassionate appointment.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
all the relevant informations necessary for consideration of the
application of the petitioner shall be supplied to the
respondent authorities within a period of one week.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.".
7. Pursuant to the above Court's order, petitioner has supplied all
certificates to the respondent authorities but the respondent
authorities dismissed the claim of the petitioner.
8. Petitioner's application was dismissed on the following grounds of
the order dated 03.02.2012 (Annexure R/5), which are as under:-
5. e`rd lsok;qDr ds ifjokj ds vkfFkZd fLFkfr dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k ftlls ;g
Li'V gS fd ifjokj dh ekfld vk;] e`rd lsok;qDrksa ds vafre osru ds 50
izfr'kr ls vf/kd gSA vr% lsok;qDr dh e`R;q dh frfFk ij ykxw u;s fn'kk funsZ'kks
ds vuqlkj e`rd ds mRrjkf/kdkjh iRuh }kjk ukfer iq= dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh
ik=rk ugha jg tkrhA
11. vk; dh x.kuk rRdkyhu vf/kdre LVkQ dks ns; C;kt 6-25% izfr o'kZ dh
nj ij ekfld #- 2419-97 + isa'ku #- 3077 + #- 375 dqy #- 5871-97 e`rd dh
vafre ekfld osru #- 10359-25 ds 50 izfr'kr #- 5179-62 ls vf/kd gSA vr%
vkosnd vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq vik= gSA
13. ekuo 'kfDr fu;kstu ekun.M ds vk/kkj ij [email protected]@2011 dh frfFk ij
fyfid lg jksdfM+;k ds 94 in fjDr gSA bl laca/k esa Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk {ks=h;
xzkeh.k cSadksa ds fy;s fn;s x;s vuqdEik fu;qfDr funsZ'k ds vk/kkj ij cSad }kjk
tkjh ifji= esa ;g mYys[k gS fd **fu;qfDr;ka fof'k'V orZeku fjfDr;ksa ;k visf{kr
fjfDr;ksa ij dh tk;sxhA vr% orZeku fu;qfDr;ksa ds fo:} fu;qfDr iznku dh tk
ldrh gSA rFkkfi lyaXu vuqeksfnr uksV'khV fnukad [email protected] @2012 For
declining the case of compassionate ground appointment case Shri Yogesh
Kumar Sahu S/o late Shri Ram Nath Sahu Ex. C/C esa mYysf[kr x.kuk ,ao
izLrko ds df.Mdk 11 esa x.kuk ds m/k`.k ls Li'V gS fd Lo- Jh jkeukFk lkgw
Hkwiwfyjks- ds mRrjkf/kdkjh dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha vkrhA vr% Jh
;ksxs'k dqekj lkgq dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fyfid lg jksdfM+;k ds vk/kkj ij
fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dk vkosnu fujLr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
entitled for grant of compassionate appointment as per prevailing
rules of old scheme for compassionate appointment but now the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N.C. Santhosh vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors (2020) 7 SCC 617 has held in paragraphs 14 to
19 which are as under:-
14. This Court in SBI vs. Raj Kumar while reiterating that no
aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment,
declared that the norms that are in force, when the application is
actually considered, will be applicable. The employer's right to
modify the scheme depending on its policies was recognized in this
judgment. Similarly in MCB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh this
Court reiterated that compassionate appointment has to be
considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme and no
aspirant can claim that his case should be considered as per the
scheme existing on the date of death of the Government employee.
15. However in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar in the
context of major shift in policy, whereunder, instead of
compassionate appointment (envisaged by the scheme dated
8.5.1993), ex gratia payment was proposed (under the circular
dated 14.02.2005), the Court adopted a different approach.
Noticing the extinguishment of, the right to claim appointment, this
Court held the "dying in harness scheme" which was prevalent on
the death of the employee, be the basis for consideration.
16. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U.Lalit noticed
the Supreme Court's view in SBI v. RajKumar (supra) and MCB
Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (supra) on one side and the
contrary view in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra)
and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on
whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of
consideration of application should apply. Accordingly, in State of
Bank of India and Ors. vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari the Court referred
the matter for consideration by a larger Bench so that the conflicting
views could be reconciled.
17. The above discussion suggest that the view taken in Canara
Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) is to be reconciled with
the contrary view of the coordinate bench, in the two earlier
judgments. Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed
by the appellants counsel on Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh
Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of
the Karnataka High Court in Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors, it can not be said that the appellants claim should
be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules
prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee.
18. In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh &
Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar the earlier decisions governing the principles
of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed.
Speaking for the bench, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated
that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has
to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule. The Dependent of a deceased
government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on
compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid
down by the State's policy.
19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled
out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at
issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of
the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government
employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death
of the government employee, can only demand consideration of
his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration
in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of
the government employee.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on the judgment in the case
of N.C. Santhosh (supra) again observed in para-19 of the judgment in
case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V.
Somyashree (2021) SCC online 704 as under:-
19. From the aforesaid rules it can be seen that only 'unmarried
daughter' and 'widowed daughter' who were dependent upon the
deceased female Government servant at the time of her death and
living with her can be said to be 'dependent' of a deceased
Government servant and that 'an unmarried daughter' and
'widowed daughter' only can be said to be eligible for appointment
on compassionate ground in the case of death of the female
Government servant. Rule 2 and Rule 3 reproduced hereinabove
do not include 'divorced daughter' as eligible for appointment on
compassionate ground and even as 'dependent'. As observed
hereinabove and even as held by this Court in the case of N.C.
Santhosh (Supra), the norms prevailing on the date of
consideration of the application should be the basis of
consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The word
'divorced daughter' has been added subsequently by Amendment,
2021. Therefore, at the relevant time when the deceased employee
died and when the original writ petitioner - respondent herein made
an application for appointment on compassionate ground the
'divorced daughter' were not eligible for appointment on
compassionate ground and the 'divorced daughter' was not within
the definition of 'dependent.'
11. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors vs. Premlata (2022) 1 SCC 30 has held in
paragraphs 8 and 9 which read as under:-
8. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the
law laid down by this court on compassionate ground on the death
of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and
considered. In the recent decision this court in Civil Appeal No.5122
of 2021 in the case of the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr.
vs. Somashree, had occasion to consider the principle governing
the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring
to the decision of this court in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka
and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Court has summarized
the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate
ground as under:-
"10.1. that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the
general rule;
10.2. that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
10.3. the appointment to any public post in the service of the
State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance
with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
10.4. appointment on compassionate ground can be made only
on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or
satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
10.5 the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the
application should be the basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment.
9. As per the law laid down by this court in catena of decisions on
the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government
vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as
mandated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However,
appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a
deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The
compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.
12. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gendram
Baghel vs. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & others in WPS No. 1685
of 2014 on 18.10.2022 has held in paragraph 9 which reads as under:-
"9. It is not in dispute that earlier view of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that application for grant of compassionate appointment has
to be considered as per the terms of the policy or circular prevailing
at the time of death of government servant. This issue is no more
res-integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments
has taken the view in case of Indian Bank and Others vs. Promila
and Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 729 and same view has been reiterated by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suneel Kumar vs. State of
UP and Others (2022) SCC online SC 999. Again Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157. But the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka
and Ors (2020) 7 SCC 617 has considered this issue rendered by
a Bench headed by three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court where
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that the subsequent policy
which has been made applicable to the all the pending applications
then the case of the compassionate appointment has to be
considered as per new policy. In the new policy, there is specific
clause which provides for grant of exgratia in lieu of compassionate
appointment."
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
authorities wrongly calculated the income of the petitioner and illegally
dismissed the claim of the petitioner but as per impugned order
(Annexure R-5), it is clear that respondent authorities minutely
calculated the income of the petitioner as per policy and dismissed the
claim of the petitioner.
14. As per new policy of 18.05.2007 which is made applicable to all the
pending cases, the application of the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment has rightly been not considered by the
bank and the petitioner was directed to accept ex-gratia lump sum
amount, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal warranting
interference by this Court. Since no illegality or infirmity is found in the
action of the respondents in dismissing the application of the petitioner,
the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Ruchi
