Tomesh Kumar Nishad v. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, District

: Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 For Respondent No.4 : : Mr. Aman Deep Singh, Panel Lawyer Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 24/02/2025

Respondent No.4/Managing Director namely; Gajendra Kumar Bhardwaj also present in person.

Heard.

This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner seeking following relief:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to 2 call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal.

10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order/letter dated 08.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) issued by the office of respondent No.4.

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application and to grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner within stipulated time.

10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate.

10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner namely; Bhagwat Nishad, who was working as Assistant Manager in respondent-department, died in harness on 27.4.2019. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application (Annexure- P/3) dated

11.5.2019 for grant of compassionate appointment, thereafter, he again filed same application twice in the year 2019. He would further submit that Sub-Registrar, Rajnandgaon made communication vide Annexure – P/5 dated 20.8.2019 to the President/Manager, Krishak Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Ghumka, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (CG) to do the needful in respect of application filed by petitioner, but respondent No.4-Managing Director vide impugned order dated

08.11.2019 (Annexure- P/1), informed petitioner that there was outstanding amount of Rs.3,14,610.80/- against his deceased father and after payment of that outstanding amount, his application can be considered. Learned counsel further submitted that granting compassionate appointment has been provided in Rule 22 of the 3 Cooperative Societies Service Rules, 2018 (henceforth referred to as “Rules 2018”) but that rule does not provide such provision that if there is any outstanding amount against the deceased employee, then compassionate appointment can be granted to his dependents only after payment of amount due against him (deceased employee), despite that, by issuing impugned memo (Annexure -P/1), petitioner has been deprived from grant of compassionate appointment.

In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 also conceded that the Rules, 2018 does not provide any such rule that if there is outstanding amount against the deceased employee, then his dependents can be granted compassionate appointment only of the depositing said amount. However, he submitted that as per the Rule 22 of the Rules, 2018, granting compassionate appointment can be decided by the Board of the Society but case of the petitioner has not been considered yet by it, which is the competent authority to consider the issue of grant of compassionate appointment.

Rule 22 the Rules, 2018 provides procedure for grant of compassionate appointment, which reads thus:-

22. कि(cid:2)सी भी सेवायु्ሹ (cid:2)े सेवा(cid:2)ाल में मृत्यु (cid:2)ी दशा में सेवायु्ሹ (cid:2)े परि(cid:23)वा(cid:23) (cid:2)े आቦኌ(cid:26)त सदस्य (cid:2)ो सोसाइटी में तत्समय भृत्य पद रि(cid:23)्ሹ होने (cid:2)ी दशा में किनयमानुसा(cid:23) तथा पा्ቔतानुसा(cid:23) अनु(cid:2)ं पा किनयुकि्ሹ दी जा स(cid:2)े गी । प(cid:23)ंतु अनु(cid:2)ं पा किनयुकि्ሹ (cid:2)े लिलए सोसाइटी (cid:2)ा बो्ቑ- तत्सम्बंधी आवश्य(cid:2) (cid:2)ाय-वाही संभागीय संयु्ሹ पंजीय(cid:2) (cid:2)ी लिललि1त अनुमतित से ही (cid:2)(cid:23) स(cid:2)े गी ।

Perusal of aforesaid provision shows that competent authority to decide issue with regard to grant of compassionate appointment is ‘Board of the Society’ but in instant case, the matter has not been 4 considered yet by the Board and it has been staled by respondent No.4-Managing Director, Krishak Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Ghumka, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (CG).

Since the issue has not been considered by Board, therefore, I do not feel inclined to entertain this writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, hence the same is disposed of. However, respondent No.4, who is present in person is directed to forward the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of 15 days from today before the ‘Board of the Society’. Thereafter, Board of the Society shall consider and decide the case of petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a further period of 30 days, as huge delay has been caused because of fault of respondent authorities. It is further observed that if grievance of the petitioner is not redressed by respondent authorities, then, liberty is left with the petitioner to approach this Court by filing appropriate petition.