HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Shri Abhishek Pandey with Ms. Deepika Sannat, Advocates Shri Amrito Das, Addl. Adv. Gen. S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board (Through Video Conferencing) 15/02/2022

1. The petitioner herein has filed the writ petition seeking appropriate direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 30/06/2021 filed by him for granting him compassionate appointment on the post of Training Officer, Class – III at the earliest.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father namely Radheyshyam 2 Thakur, while working on the post of Training Officer, Class-III died in harness on 15/04/2021 and though the petitioner is a degree holder i.e. Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical), yet respondent No.2 has sought his consent for his compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Grade – III or any other post of Class IV vide letter dated 26/06/2021, to which, the petitioner submitted representation on 30/06/2021 that he is a degree holder of B.E. (Mechanical), therefore, he be granted compassionate appointment on the post of Class -III post, which has not been considered and decided. Therefore, it has been pleaded that appropriate direction be issued to respondent No.2 to consider him for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Training Officer, Class – III.

3. Shri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of Training Officer, Class-III as he is a degree holder i.e. B.E. (Mechanical) and entitled for the said post. It is submitted that respondent No.2 may be directed to consider and his representation for compassionate appointment on the post of Training Officer, Class – III.

4. Shri Amrito Das, Addl. Adv. Gen. appearing for the State would submit that the compassionate appointment has to be granted as per applicable policy and the petitioner cannot claim appointment on the higher post which is not permissible in the policy, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 3

6. A careful perusal of the order (Annexure P/3) dated 26/06/2021 would show that the petitioner has made an application for compassionate appointment on the post of Training Officer which has been replied by respondent No.2 that as per circular dated 31/05/2019 and Chhattisgarh Audyogik Prashikshan (Araajpatrit) Tritiya Shreni Seva Bharti Niyam, 2014, compassionate appointment cannot be granted on the post of Training Officer, Class – III and sought consent for his appointment on the post of Assistant Grade – III or any other post of Class – IV which will be processed in accordance with the rules but the petitioner has not given any consent and as such, the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Training Officer but according to letter dated 26/06/2021, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment on the said post.

7. It would be appropriate to notice pertinent decision in this regard at this stage.

7.1 In the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali (1994) 4 SCC 448), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once the person is considered and appointed against the compassionate ground as per scheme, he cannot be considered again as right to make appointment on compassionate ground stood exhausted. Para 15 of the report states as under:- “15. …...In fact, the respondent did not object to his appointment as a clerk and his claim for consideration for the post of teacher was one year after his appointment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme had been completed. The claim for appointment as Inspector was never made earlier. The High Court without even analysing the 4 circumstances under which the seven persons mentioned in its judgment came to be appointed as Police Officers (ASI or Inspector), straight away has chosen to conclude that there was discrimination. We are not in a position to appreciate this line of reasoning....” (7.2) In the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while highlighting the object of granting compassionate appointment, have held as under:- “The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for host held by deceased.” (7.3) Their Lordships further observed pertinently in the aforesaid case (supra) as under:- “If the dependent of deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offerred, he is free not to do so. The post is not offerred to cater to his status, but to see the family through the economic calamity.” (7.4) Later on, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court has clearly held that dependents having accepted the appointment as LDC on compassionate ground, therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated and no further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise, otherwise it would e a case of “endless compassion”. Para 8 the report states as under:- “8. Admittedly, the respondent’s father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an application on 8- 4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of 5 vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed on the post of LDC by order dated 14-12- 1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of “endless compassion”. Eligibility selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so- called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case.” (7.5) Later on, in I.G. (Karmik) and others Vs. Prahlad Mani Tripathi, (2007 6 SCC 162, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held once the right is exhausted, any further ore second consideration for the higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise.

8. Since the respondents, vide impugned letter (Annexure P/3) held that the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment on the post of Training Officer, Class – III, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by directing respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner / his representation for the post of Training Officer, Class – III and even otherwise the petitioner has not questioned the impugned letter dated 26/06/2021 in this petition.

9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, this order will not bar the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Grade – III and Class – IV as held by respondent No.2 vide memo dated 26/06/2021. No order as to cost (s). Deepti Sd/- ( Sanjay K. Agrawal ) Judge