Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Mohini Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 January, 2025
1/5
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3218 of 2024
SMT. MOHINI SONKAR versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Order Sheet
14/01/2025 Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the
State.
Learned counsel for the State submits that
service report of notice issued to the respondents
No. 3 and 5 is still awaited.
Since the matter relates to grant of
compassionate appointment and vide order dated
15.02.2024, this Court has passed the following
order:-
7. For the foregoing discussions, this
Court is of the considered view that
the respondents have ignored the fact
that delay was caused due to spread
of pandemic Covid-19 which was
beyond the human control and hence,
the order impugned passed by the
respondent concerned is liable to be
interfered with.
8. Consequently, writ petition is
allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-
1 is set aside. Respondents are
directed to reconsider claim of the
petitioner regarding grant of
compassionate appointment in the
peculiar factual matrix of the case and
if petitioner fulfills the eligibility
criteria prescribed for appointment to
the post of 'Assistant Teacher
(Panchayat)', issue appointment order
in her favour on compassionate
ground expeditiously, preferably
within an outer limit of '60 days' from
the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
However, without any justification in an
arbitrary manner impugned order has been
passed by which the claim of the petitioner has
been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Malaya Nanda
Sethy vs. State of Orissa and others passed in
Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 in which the
Supreme Court has considered very aspect of the
case and has passed following order:-
7. Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen
that there was no fault and/or delay and/or
negligence on the part of the appellant at all.
He was fulfilling all the conditions for
appointment on compassionate grounds
under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his
application was kept pending and/or no
order was passed on one ground or the other.
Therefore, when there was no fault and/or
delay on the part of the appellant and all
throughout there was a delay on the part of
the department/authorities, the appellant
should not be made to suffer. Not appointing
the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be
giving a premium to the delay and/or
inaction on the part of the
department/authorities. There was an
absolute callousness on the part of the
department/authorities. The facts are
conspicuous and manifest the grave delay in
entertaining the application submitted by the
appellant in seeking employment which is
indisputably attributable to the
department/authorities. In fact, the appellant
has been deprived of seeking compassionate
appointment, which he was otherwise
entitled to under the 1990 Rules. The
appellant has become a victim of the delay
and/or inaction on the part of the
department/authorities which may be
deliberate or for reasons best known to the
authorities concerned. Therefore, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
keeping the larger question open and aside,
as observed hereinabove, we are of he opinion
that the appellant herein shall not be denied
appointment under the 1990 Rules.
8. In view of the above discussion and for the
reasons stated above, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High
Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to consider the case
of the appellant for appointment on
compassionate grounds under the 1990
Rules as per his original application made in
July, 2010 and if he is otherwise found
eligible to appoint him on the post of Junior
Clerk, The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of four weeks from
today. However, it is observed that the
appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits
from the date of his appointment only. The
present appeal is accordingly allowed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
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 fom 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 Courts
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 all as in 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.
Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, fresh notice be issued
to the respondents No. 3 and 4 on payment of
process fee by Registered post, Ordinary mode and
Hamdast also.
P.F. be paid within a week.
Learned counsel for the respondents are
directed to file their reply on or before 10 th
February, 2025. Thereafter, learned counsel for
the petitioner shall also file his rejoinder to the
reply filed by the respondents.
List this case on 17th February, 2025.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
NAGARIA JUDGE
vaishali
