Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.137 of 2016 Sandeep Kumar Yadav, aged about 26 years, S/o Late Shri Shrichand Yadav, R/o Village- Mansha, Post Office- Silyari493116, Police Station - Dharsiwa, 493221, District Raipur (C.G.), Presently R/o- Bajrang-Nagar Infront of Sulabha-Building, Raipur492001, Police Station- City Kotwali, Civil and Revenue District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Tah & Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi-Project, Water Resources Department, Raipur - 492001, Tah. & Distt. - Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Superintending Engineer (Admn.) Mahanadi Circle, Water Resources Department, Raipur -492001, Tah. & Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)
4. The Executive Engineer, Water Management, Sub-Division No.1, Water Resources Department, Raipur -492001, Tah & Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
5. The Collector, Raipur-District Raipur-492001, Tah. & Distt- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents For Appellant :
Mr.V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate.
For Respondents /State:
Mr.Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board Per Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice 04/07/2016 (1) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21.01.2016
passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3094/ 2014 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant claiming employment on compassionate ground. (2) Briefly stated facts of the case are that father of the appellant was working as Amin with the State of Chhattisgarh. Unfortunately, he died in harness on 26.10.2004 and at that time the present appellant was only 14 years of age. The present appellant moved an application for compassionate appointment on 09.01.2005 and subsequently another application has been filed on 9.1.2006. By order dated 5.3.2012, it has been communicated to the appellant that his application for compassionate appointment cannot be considered in view of the fact that he had filed the same more than three years after the death of his father.
(3) It is contended by Mr. Tamaskar that this period of three years does not apply when the dependant of the deceased employee entitled for compassionate appointment, is a minor. He further contended that a minor cannot be given employment.
(4) In cases, if the family of the deceased employee is still under indigent circumstances then the minor, on attaining majority, may claim to get employment. However, all the relevant facts are required to be considered i.e. is the family of the deceased employee still in indigent circumstances and cannot survive if employment is not given to the appellant; what are the benefits, which were given to the family of the appellant; has the deceased employee left behind enough property for the family to maintain itself etc. All these facts are to be considered while
considering a case for grant of compassionate employment. (5) In this case, the appellant, as per his own statement, attained majority in the year 2008. He could not wait for more than three years for the State to pass an order. If no order was passed, even then he can approach this Court for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. (6) Finally order was passed against the appellant on 5.3.2012. If the appellant was aggrieved by the said order, he should have immediately approached this Court by way of filing writ petition, but the writ petition was filed after gap of more than two years i.e. on 4.7.2014. (7) In these circumstances, claim of the appellant was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that the claim has been filed at a belated stage.
(8) At this stage, counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in the matters of Smt. Indu Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others1, Smt. Janki Bai Thakur & another Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others2 and Ramlal Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others3 in support of his case. (9) We find that these judgments are not applicable in this case because they all relate to grant of retiral benefits. (10) Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed by one of us (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) in Nagendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Food Corporation of India & others4. In this case, it was 1Decided on 4.1.2013 in W.P. No.2195/2003 2Decided on 22.01.2016 in W.P. (S) No.1167/2015 3Decided on 27.11.2015 in W.P.(S) No.352/2014 42016 LAB.I.C.1266
held that mere marital status of the dependant would not determine whether dependant was entitled for compassionate appointment or not. The Court held that even the married son would be entitled to benefit of compassionate appointment. This portion of the said judgment has been approved by the Division Bench in W.A. No.159/201. The Division Bench however set aside the direction to consider the case for grant of employment on the ground that the appellant therein had failed to establish that he was fully dependant on his deceased father. In view of the complete absence of any explanation and the silence on his part from July 2008 till the institution of a writ petition in March, 2015, his claim was rejected. Therefore, this Judgment will also not help the appellant. (11) In view of above, this writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Deepak Gupta) (Sanjay K.Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge B/D