Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5394 of 2017 Judgment reserved on : 26.03.2025 Judgment delivered on : 25.06.2025 Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 1 - Khilesh Kumar Malakar S/o Late Shri Milan Malakar, Aged About 26 Years R/o Madhuban Modhipara, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh versus Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay, District New Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2 - The Engineer In Chief , Public Works Department Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer , Public Works Department Raigarh District Raigarh , Chhattisgarh. , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Devesh Kela, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 2 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order impugned dated 20.07.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no.3. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment immediately. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of "Gangman" in permanent gang since 1984 under the respondent no.4 Public Works Department. During his service tenure, he died in harness on 04.07.2008. After death of his father, the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment in view of the circulars of the State Government dated 10.06.2003 & 27.04.2006, but the respondent authorities failed to decide the application made by the petitioner. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.261/2012
Decision
before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2012 with direction to the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities but the respondent authorities did not pay any attention in this regard and kept the matter in abeyance and the petitioner kept on representing the respondents, but 3 ultimately the respondent no. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner citing that in view of the circular dated 27.04.2006, since the father of petitioner namely Milan was not a permanent gangman in work-charged establishment, as such the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned dated 20.07.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 3 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law. Before the death of the father of petitioner, the authority concerned prepared the regularization list in which the name of father of petitioner was mentioned at Sr. No.175, but unfortunately the same was issued after the demise of his father, as such his father should be treated as regularized. The respondent no.1 even recommended the application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondent no.2 on 21.01.2011 for considering the case of petitioner. The respondent no.4 issued a memo/letter dated 27.04.06 after the death of Gangmen who were regularized in work charge establishment, as such family members of such gangmen are eligible for compassionate appointment. He further submits that this Court in the identical matter i.e. W.P. (S) No. 4480/06 Smt. Puna Bai Vs State of C.G. and others has given a verdict that the employees/ gangman who have completed about 15 years of service in Gangman in permanent gang in the work charged 4 establishment, they are entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate basis, despite that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected citing that his father was not regularized. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that on 10/06/2003 State of C.G. had formulated its policy on compassionate appointment. As per the said policy, those employee's dependents shall only be preferred who were permanent in contingency/work-charged service and died in harness. Further vide instructions dated 27/04/2006 issued by the respondent no.1 it has been made clear that those unskilled labourers who have not been regularized in work charged contingency establishment, dependents of those would not be entitled for compassionate appointment as they are labourers only and after considering all facts of the petitioner's case, the authority competent has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that the relief claimed in the instant petition suffers from delay and laches on the fact that the father of the petitioner died on 4-07-2008 and the petitioner is claiming relief in year 2012, i.e. almost after 4 years. Thus on this ground alone this petition is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that compassionate appointment is not a method of recruitment but infact it is a facility provided for immediate rehabilitation of the family and dependents in distress so as to help the family and 5 dependents of the deceased to tide over the immediate financial crises. The basic purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family and dependents to tide over the sudden financial crises which occurs due to demise of bread earner in harness. It is also well settled that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be staked if sufficient time has passed and dependents/family members have been able to sustain themselves financially from other sources of income etc. and hence being given appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not disputed in this case that the father of the petitioner was working as labourer/gangman on daily wages and he died in harness on 04.07.2008 and after death of his father the petitioner preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities, which was rejected by the respondent authorities vide orders dated 21.07.2010 and 29.06.2010. Thereafter petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No.261/2012 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.01.2022 with direction to the competent authority to examine the issue and pass an order in accordance with law. It is also not disputed that the petitioner filed application again on 6 13.07.2017 before the respondent authorities, which was rejected vide impugned order (Annexure-P/1) by the respondents on this ground that services of the father of the petitioner were not regularized in the work charged contingency establishment before this death, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as per the policy of the State Government. 7. The petitioner has filed service book of his father (Annexure-P/2) and also filed copy of order dated 23.08.2008 (Annexure-P/3) by which services of the contingency employees were recommended for regularization. In Annexure-P/3, petitioner’s father name was at Sr. No.175 and it is clearly written in this list that his first appointment date is 01.10.1984 and the competent authority recommended the name of the father of the petitioner Milan for regularization on 23.08.2008 as per Annexure-P/3. 8. This Court in the matter of Taman Lal vs State of Chhattisgarh and another, passed in WPS No.3685/2011 vide judgment dated 30.07.2018 observed in paras 12 & 13 as under: “12. So far as the definition of permanent employee is concerned, it would be relevant to take note of the provision of Rule 2(b) and 2(c) of the Chhattisgarh (Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. (b) Work-charged employees means a person employed upon the actual execution, as distinct from general supervision of a specified work or upon subordinate supervision of the departmental labour, store, running and repairs of electrical equipment and machinery in connection with such work, excluding 7 the daily paid labour and muster-role employee employed on the work. (c) Permanent employee means a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974” 13. As per the definition of permanent employee as referred herein above it clearly reflect that, the requirement to become a permanent employee was not an order of regularization but it the length of service which matters. The moment an employee has put in more than 15 years of service, he attains the status of a permanent employee.” 9. The main objection of the respondents is that the name of the petitioner’s father was recommended on 23.08.2008 and before issuing order of regularization, Milan already died on 04.07.2008 and on this ground the respondents denied the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has also filed copy of writ petition previously filed by him bearing WPS No.261/2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2012, paras 2, 3 & 4 of which are as under:- “2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the dispute raised in the instant petition is squarely covered by the order dated 19.06.2009, passed by this Court in W P. (S) No 4480 of 2006 (Smt Puna Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others]. 3. Learned State counsel disputes the fact, however, having regard to the facts situation of the case, it appears that the identical issue was under consideration in the aforestated case. 4. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities concerned to consider his case in light of the aforesaid case In that view of the matter, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a 8 representation within a period of 15 days In the event, the representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent authorities within a period of six weeks, in accordance with law, on its own merit.” 11. The respondents have objected that the petitioner did not file any representation as per order of this Court and he cannot file application for compassionate appointment again, which was already dismissed by impugned order (Annexure-P/1). 12. It is not disputed that Milan was appointed on 01.10.1984 in the respondent Department and vide Annexure-P/3, his name was recommended for regularization on 23.08.2008 i.e. after 24 years of his service. 13. This Court in Taman Lal (supra) held in para 20 as under:- “20. There does not appear to be any reason why the State Government should not have considered only the length of service of the father of the petitioner so as to ascertain whether he was a permanent employe in the contingency establishment or not.” 14. The petitioner has also filed circular/order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the General Administrative Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, important part of which are as under:- “1. नि(cid:2)ቖኔ(cid:4)ोሸ(cid:6) की(cid:9) ्ቚभा(cid:12)वोሸ(cid:14)लता(cid:12)- ये(cid:18) नि(cid:2)ቖኔ(cid:4)ोሸ निቖኔ(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:19)की 14-06-2013 से(cid:18) ्ቚभा(cid:12)वोሸ(cid:14)ल ोሻ(cid:6)गे(cid:18)। 2. नि(cid:2)ቖኔ(cid:4)ोሸ(cid:6) की(cid:12) निवस्ता(cid:12)र और उ(cid:2)की(cid:12) ल(cid:12)गे(cid:28) ोሻ(cid:29)(cid:2)(cid:12)- ये(cid:18) नि(cid:2)ቖኔ(cid:4)ोሸ र(cid:12)ज्ये की(cid:18) की(cid:12)ये(cid:31)कील(cid:12)ोሬ(cid:6) की(cid:18) से(cid:19)बं(cid:19)ध ेሰ$ ल(cid:29)की से(cid:18)व(cid:12) और ोሬቖኔ(cid:6) ोሬर नि(cid:2)ये%्ሹ निकीये(cid:18) गेये(cid:18) सेेሰस्ता व्येनि्ሹये(cid:6) ोሬर ल(cid:12)गे(cid:28) ोሻ(cid:6)गे(cid:18)। 3. निቖኔव(cid:19)गेता ोሸ(cid:12)सेकी(cid:9)ये से(cid:18)वकी से(cid:18) ता(cid:12)त्ोሬये(cid:31)-निቖኔव(cid:19)गेता ोሸ(cid:12)सेकी(cid:9)ये से(cid:18)वकी से(cid:18) ता(cid:12)त्ोሬये(cid:31) ऐसे(cid:18) नि(cid:2)येनिेሰता ोሸ(cid:12)सेकी(cid:9)ये से(cid:18)वकी से(cid:18) ोሻ*, जो(cid:29) नि(cid:2)येनिेሰता ोሸ(cid:12)सेकी(cid:9)ये से(cid:18)वकी की(cid:18) रूोሬ ेሰ$ 9 की(cid:12)ये(cid:31)रता रोሻ(cid:12) ोሻ(cid:29) अथव(cid:12) आकीቦኌस्ेሰकी से(cid:18)व(cid:12)/की(cid:12)ये(cid:31)भा(cid:12)रिरता स्थ(cid:12)ोሬ(cid:2)(cid:12) की(cid:12) नि(cid:2)येनिेሰता रूोሬ से(cid:18) की(cid:12)ये(cid:31)रता कीेሰ(cid:31)चा(cid:12)र(cid:14) रोሻ(cid:12) ोሻ(cid:29) एव(cid:19) से(cid:18)व(cid:12)की(cid:12)ल की(cid:18) ቖኔ4र(cid:12)(cid:2) जिजोसेकी(cid:12) असे(cid:12)ेሰनियेकी नि(cid:2)ध(cid:2)/आत्ेሰोሻत्ये(cid:12) ቛኋ(cid:12)र(cid:12) नि(cid:2)ध(cid:2) ोሻ(cid:29) गेये(cid:12) ोሻ(cid:29)।" 15. This Court in WPS No.5754/2014 in between Shivan Lal Netam vs State of Chhattisgarh and others vide judgment dated 01.10.2018 has also discussed the previous order of this Court dated 30.08.2018 in WPS No.3685/2011 in connection with the petitioner and allowed the said petition of the petitioner therein and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner therein for grant of compassionate appointment, whose father’s services were also not regularized during his services. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and previous orders of this Court as also the guidelines of the State Government, the impugned order 20.07.2017 (Annexure-P/1) is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly quashed with direction to the respondent authorities that they shall provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from today. 17. The writ petition stands allowed. Nirala Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge