Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Gayatri vs The Chhattisgarh State Power ... on 16 January, 2025

                                                 1




SATISH
TUMANE
                                                                             NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                      WPS No.3358 of 2017

            1 - Smt. Gayatri D/o Late Shri Ramprasad, Aged About 30 Years

Digitally   Occupation     Un-Employed     R/o       Ghutrapara,   Ambikapur,   P.   S.
signed by
SATISH
TUMANE
            Ambikapur, Civil And Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh
                                                                       ... Petitioner(s)
                                             versus
            1 - The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited
            Through Its Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur,
            Chhattisgarh
            2 - The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Through
            Its Director General Manager H R D, Daganiya, Raipur District Raipur
            Chhattisgarh
            3 - Deputy General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation
            Company Limited, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan Daganiya, Raipur, District
            Raipur,Chhattisgarh
            4 - Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission
            Company Limited (Meter Rile Testing Sub Station) Vishrampur, District
            Surajpur Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on board 16.01.2025

1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality

and propriety of the order dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by

the Respondent No.4-Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power

Transmission Company Limited, whereby, the application made by the

petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground has been

rejected.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the petitioner is the

dependent widowed daughter, therefore, the respondent authorities

have erred in rejecting her claim for appointment on compassionate

ground. It is contended further that even the married daughter has

been held to be entitled to be appointed as such, by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the matter of Chandrani Sinha vs.

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Holding Company Limited and

another, decided on 07.09.2016 in Writ Petition (S) No.5576 of 2014,

therefore, the order impugned be quashed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents while placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the

Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Bank and others vs. Promila

and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729, submits that since the

alleged policy issued on 30/07/2013, was not in existence at the

relevant point of time, when petitioner's father was died on 25/09/2010,

therefore, no illegality has been committed, while rejecting her claim. It

is contended further that since the petitioner's claim of similar nature

has already been rejected earlier, vide order dated

26.05.2011(Annexure P-4) and, which has attained its finality,

therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on

compassionate ground and, the petition, as framed, is therefore, liable

to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the entire record carefully.

5. From perusal of the record, it appears that father of the petitioner

namely, Late Ram Prasad, who was employed in the respondent

department on the post of Peon, has passed away on 25.09.2010,

during his service tenure. Immediately after the sad demise of him, the

petitioner, being a daughter, moved an application (Annexure

P-3/Annexure R-1) on 31.01.2011, seeking her appointment on

compassionate ground along with a consent letter of her mother. While

moving the said application (Annexure P-3/Annexure R-1), the

petitioner has, however, not disclosed the fact that she is the widowed

wife of one Nand Kishore.

6. Be that as it may, the Policy, being No.01-05/PD-3/1204, Raipur

dated 28.02.2004, was in existence at the relevant point of time when

her father was died on 25.09.2010 and, according to Clause-7 of it, the

entitlement of the deceased employee would be available to wife, son

or unmarried daughter (adopted son/daughters), who are completely

dependent upon the said employee. The said clause is relevant for the

purpose, which reads as under :-

7. "अनुकंपा नियुक्ति मृतक कर्मचारी के परिवार के किसी एक सदस्य पत्नि, पुत्र अथवा अविवाहित पुत्री (दत्तक पुत्र/ पुत्रियॉ शामिल रहेंगे) जो कि परिवार पर पूर्ण तः आश्रित है, को ही प्रदान की जायेगी। पुत्र के अनुकंपा नियुक्ति

प्रकरण में मृतक की विधवा को इस आशय का शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत करना होगा कि उसका पुत्र (विवाहित अथवा अविवाहित) पूर्ण तः मृतक के परिवार पर आश्रित है एवं परिवार से vyx नहीं है। मृतक कर्मचारी के परिवार के किसी आश्रित सदस्य के मण्डल की सेवा में होने पर अन्य सदस्य को अनुकंपा नियुक्ति की पात्रता नहीं होगी। मृतक कर्मचारी का ऐसा पुत्र जो पूर्व से ही परिवार से अलग है को अनुकंपा नियुक्ति की पात्रता नहीं होगी किन्तु उपरोक्त स्थिति में मृतक के अन्य पुत्र जो परिवार के साथ हैं को मृतक की विधवा की सहमति पर अनुकंपा नियुक्ति दिये जाने पर विचार किया जायेगा। अविवाहित पुत्री को भी अनुकंपा नियुक्ति मृतक की विधवा की सहमति पर ही दी जायेगी। मृतक के पुत्र/पुत्री को अनुकंपा नियुक्ति इस शर्त के साथ प्रदान की जायेगी कि वह मृतक की विधवा एवं परिवार के अन्य आश्रित सदस्यों के भरण पोषण की पूर्ण जिम्मेदारी लें अन्यथा भविष्य में विधवा की

शिकायत पर उनकी नियुक्ति को निरस्त किया जा सकेगा।"

7. After taking note of the aforesaid policy, particularly Clause-7 of

it, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order/letter dated

26.05.2011 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that since the petitioner was

a married daughter, therefore, she is not entitled to be appointed on

compassionate ground and, accordingly, the said application was

returned to her with the aforesaid observation, as such, the said order

has attained its finality by efflux of time.

8. After the rejection of the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, a new

policy was introduced by the respondent authorities on 30.07.2013

(being No.01-05/PD-6/2478), wherein, the dependent widowed

daughter was included for the consideration of appointment on

compassionate ground. It, therefore, appears that after the issuance of

said policy, the petitioner has woken-up and moved another application

on 23.08.2016 (Annexure P-6, available at Page-25 of petition), but

without disclosing the refusal of her earlier claim of similar nature and

prayed for her appointment on compassionate ground, as she is the

dependent widowed daughter of said Ram Prasad. The application, as

made by the petitioner on 23.08.2016, was rejected by the respondent

No.4 vide its order impugned dated 22.09.2016 (Annexure P-1)

observing, inter alia, that the policy (Annexure P-5) issued on

30.07.2013 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner as it

was not in existence when her father was died on 25.09.2010, as such,

no benefit could be provided to the petitioner based upon the said

policy and accordingly, the said application was rejected, while

returning the same to her, as was returned earlier upon refusal of her

claim on 26.05.2011.

9. What is, therefore, reflected from perusal of the entire records

that the petitioner's father, who was performing his duties on the post

of Peon in the respondent department was died on 25.09.2010 and,

the application made by the petitioner on 31.01.2011 (Annexure

P-3/Annexure R-1) seeking appointment on compassionate ground

was rejected vide order dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure P-4) while taking

note of the Policy, dated 28.02.2004, which was in existence at the

relevant point of time when her father was died on 25.09.2010. The

said order rejecting her claim, has attained its finality by efflux of time

and, since the subsequent policy (Annexure P-5), issued by the

respondent authorities on 30.07.2013, was not in existence at that

particular time, when petitioner's father was passed away on

25.09.2010, the claim of the petitioner has, thus, rightly been refused

by way of the order impugned dated 22.09.2016 and, no interference

based upon the subsequent policy is, therefore, called for.

10. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principle laid down

by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Bank (supra),

wherein, it has been held at paragraphs 18 & 20, as under :-

18. "The question of applicability of any subsequent Scheme really does not apply in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412. Thus, it would not be appropriate to examine the case of the respondents in the context of subsequent Schemes......"

20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles applicable to the cases of compassionate employment i.e., succor being provided at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment. If these factors are kept in mind, it would be noticed that the respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant stage of time, as per the norms, to deal with the unfortunate situation which they were faced with. Thus, looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot claim benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee, which could have been considered to be applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412. It is not for the courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review, as has been recently emphasized by this Court in State of H. P. v. Prakash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285."

11. In the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in the matter of Indian Bank (supra), it is, thus, apparent that the

policy, which was in existence at the time of death of the employee

would alone be taken into consideration and, since the policy issued by

the respondent authorities in the year 2013, much after the sad demise

of the petitioner's father would, therefore, be not applicable and, the

respondent authorities have not committed any illegality in rejecting her

claim.

12. In so far as the reliance placed by learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner in the matter of Chandrani Sinha (supra) is concerned,

the same is, however, on different footings and would be of no use

being distinguishable from the facts involved herein.