Ramesh Kumar Sori v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4335 of 2021 Ramesh Kumar Sori S/o Late Shri Khorbahara Ram Sori Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhumadah, Police Station And Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration , Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya , New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.

The Commandant 14th Battalion (Bha. Ra.), Chhattisgarh Security Force, Dhanora, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Malay Jain, Advocate For State :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18/08/2021 1.

Aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents in issuance of Annexure P/1 dated 13.03.2020 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. The same has been rejected on the ground that one of the elder brothers of the petitioner is in government employment.

2.

The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present writ petition is that the father of the petitioner was working under the respondents as a Head Constable and who died in harness on 19.06.2019. The petitioner and the widow of the deceased were the two persons, who were on the date of death of the deceased totally depending upon his income. According to the petitioner, on the date of death the deceased was survived by his wife and three children. Of the three children, one

of the elder brothers of the petitioner was already married and was in government employment since long. The other elder brother also stood married, but was not in government employment, both these elder brothers were living separately on their own and were not providing any financial assistance to the petitioner or his mother for their sustenance. Thus, the petitioner and his mother are finding it difficult to maintain themselves after the death of the deceased. 3.

The contention of the petitioner is that since the two brothers had already married and got separated from the family long before even the death of the deceased, they were no longer dependents to the deceased and therefore just because one of them being in government employment should not be a ground for not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents authorities ought to have conducted some short of an inquiry to ascertain the dependency part before they could have rejected the claim application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

4.

It is the contention of the petitioner that since one of the elder brothers got his employment long back and both the elder brothers were already married long before the death of the deceased and they have their own family and children and also living separately and not supporting financially, they do not fall within the definition of dependents of the deceased. Moreover, the elder brothers who are already married and have their own family depending upon them, they cannot be considered to be a permanent source of income for the petitioner and his widowed mother for sustaining themselves. To that

extent the authorities ought to have conducted an enquiry and thereafter should have taken a decision.

5. The State counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submits that since one of the elder brothers of the petitioner is already in government employment, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected and in the absence of any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent cannot be said to be bad.

6.

At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of a recent judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 1025/2020 (Nandini Pradhan & another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). The said Writ Petition was allowed on 18.2.2020 wherein the Court has relied upon the judgment passed on an earlier occasion in the case of Smt. Sulochana Netam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others in WPS No. 2728/2017 decided on 23.11.

2017 wherein this Court had allowed the said Writ Petition and set-aside the earlier order passed by the authorities and had remitted the matter back for a fresh consideration of the claim of Petitioner after due verification of dependency aspect, firstly upon the deceased employee and secondly whether the brother of Petitioner who is in government employment is providing any assistance to Petitioner or not and also whether that brother has married and has his own family or not and whether he is staying along with petitioner or not.

appointment in the event of family members of deceased employee being in government employment.

7.

This Court is of the firm view that the intention by which the said clause inserted by the State Government in the policy of compassionate appointment was to ensure that the compassionate appointment can be given to a person whose is more needy. It never meant that in the event of there being somebody in the government employment in the family of deceased employee, the claim for compassionate appointment would stand rejected only on that ground. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court the possibility cannot be ruled out of the so called earning members and the so called persons who are in government employment from among the family members of deceased employee having their own family liabilities and in some cases are far away from the place of deceased employee and staying along with their own family. The rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment to a person who was directly dependant upon the earnings of deceased employee would be arbitrary and would also be in contravention of the intentions of framing the scheme for compassionate appointment.

8.

In the case of Sulochana (supra), in paragraph 9, this Court dealing with the said issue has held as under:- "9. In the considered opinion of this Court, in a case, where claim of compassionate appointment is made on the ground that the other member of the family had started living separately and not providing any financial help to the remaining dependent members of the family, who are at lurch, factual enquiry ought to be made by the competent authority to arrive at its own conclusion of facts as to whether this assertion of other earning member living separately is factually correct or not. If it is found, as a matter of fact, that the other earning member of the family at the time of death had already started living separately and not providing financial assistance to the remaining dependents of the family, compassionate

appointment must follow to eligible dependent of the family. However, in the enquiry, if it is found that the claim is only to get employment without there being any need because other earning member of the family is not living separately and providing financial support compassionate appointment may not follow. The aforesaid enquiry is required to be done even though the policy does not categorically state so. The State should consider by incorporating amendments in the policy to deal with this such contingency where it is found that on the date of death of government servant, the other earning member was living separately and not providing any financial help." 9.

The aforesaid principles of law laid down in the case of Sulochana (supra) have been followed by this Court in a large number of cases and that is the consistent stand of the various branches of this Court in the past many years now. This Court is also in the given circumstances inclined to hold that the rejection of the application of Petitioner for compassionate appointment by a single line order only on the basis of the clause mentioned in the scheme or policy of compassionate appointment of the State Government would not be sustainable. There ought to have been some sort of preliminary enquiry so far as dependency part is concerned conducted by the Respondents prior to reaching to a conclusion. 10.

Considering the fact that one of the elder brothers is in government employment, what needs to be verified is whether the said person can be brought within the ambit of dependent. Whether the said person can be compelled to take care of the petitioner and his widowed mother particularly when both elder brother of the petitioner have their own family and children to take care of and they have been living separately altogether.

11.

In the absence of any such situation, the policy of the State Govt. to that extent so far as compassionate appointment is concerned, has to be read down to be decided only after an enquiry which needs to be conducted by the respondents, ascertaining the dependency part and

also in respect of any support which the petitioner is getting from the brother. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order needs to be reconsidered and the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by strict interpretation of the policy would not be sustainable. 12.

Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 13.03.2020 deserve to be and is accordingly set-aside. The authorities are directed to re-consider the claim of the Petitioner afresh taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs and take a fresh decision at the earliest within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

13.

Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved