Nafr High Court · 2015
Case Details
1 CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.22 12:33:46 +0530 2025:CGHC:3752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1895 of 2017 1 - Smt. Sulekha Bai Wd/o Late Gend Ram Rajak, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Parsada, Post Office Tifra, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Electricity, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deputy Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer (O&M), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
4 - Smt. Durga Bai Wd/o Late Gend Ram Rajak, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Near Panitanki Ashok Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/state : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 21/01/2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and 2 propriety of the order dated 29/03/2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No.3- Executive Engineer (O&M), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner on 31/01/2017 seeking appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground of limitation while taking note of the Circular bearing No.01-04/PD-6/2478 dated 30/07/2013. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since a proceeding under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1923”) was pending before the concerned Civil Court having its territorial jurisdiction and, as the same was decided on 10/10/2015, therefore, the application made by the petitioner on 31/01/2017 cannot be held to be barred by time and the concerned respondent authorities have, therefore, erred in rejecting the same. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the issue, which was pending before the concerned Court under Section 372 of the Act, 1923, was not with regard to appointment on compassionate ground as the issue involved therein was only with regard to entitlement of the disputed amount, which was payable to the deceased employee, i.e. Gend Ram Rajak, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, therefore, the application as made by the petitioner on 31/01/2017, much beyond the prescribed period of 3 years under the Circular bearing No.01-04/PD-6/2478 dated 30/07/2013 has, therefore, rightly been rejected vide order impugned. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the 3 entire papers annexed with this petition carefully. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that one Gend Ram Rajak, who was performing his duty in Chhattisgarh Electricity Department as Lineman, Grade-II, was died on 15/09/2009 and upon his sad demise, the petitioner –Smt Sulekha Bai, while claiming to be his legally wedded wife, has moved an application under Section 372 of the Act, 1923, seeking grant of succession certificate with regard to her entitlement in relation to the amount, which was payable to said Gend Ram Rajak, while impleading one Durga Bai, alleged to have been the first wife of said Gend Ram Rajak. The said application was submitted before the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur, where, the same was registered as Succession Case No.11/2010 and, vide order dated dated 30/01/2015, the same was rejected and being aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Court, where, a compromise has been arrived at between them, i.e. petitioner – Smt. Sulekha Bai and said Durga Bai, before the Lok Adalat and after considering the compromise made between them, entitlement with regard to the disputed amount payable to said Gend Ram Rajak, was directed to be apportioned in equal share vide its order dated 10/10/2015 (Annexure P-3). The relevant observations made therein at paragraphs 3 and 4 read as under :- “3- ्ቚस्तुत राजीनामा आवेदन के संबंध में अपीलाቕኍ(cid:26) ्ቅं ० 1 ्ቦीमती सुलेखा बाई आ०सा०-1 एवं उ्ቈरवादी ्ቅमांक-1 ्ቦीमती दुቇኋा$ बाई आ०सा०-1 का शपቕኍ पूव$क कቕኍन लेखब्ቍ किकया ቇኋया जिजसमें सा्ቌीቇኋण ने व्य्ሹ किकया है किक स्व० ቇኋेंदराम रजक की मृत्यु के प्ቐात उसके किवभाቇኋ किवघुत मंडल में देयक जमा राशिश 4,03,759/-अपीलाቕኍ(cid:26)ቇኋण एवं उ्ቈरवादी ्ቅमांक 1,4,5,6,7 एवं 8 के मध्य बराबर बराबर किवभाजिजत किकया जावे। तቕኍा किवघुत किवभाቇኋ से ्ቚा् पेंशन उ्ቈरवादी ्ቅमांक- 1 दुቇኋा$बाई एवं अनुकम्पा किनयुकि्ሹ अपीलाቕኍ(cid:26) ्ቅमांक-1 सुलेखा बाई ्ቚा् करेቇኋी। उभय प्ቌ ने स्वेच्छापूव$क किबना किकसी दबाव एवं ्ቚलोभन के राजीनामा आवेदन अनुसार राजीनामा कर लिलया है। अपीलाቕኍ(cid:26)ቇኋण ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत अपील खारिरज किकया 4 जावे। 4- उभय प्ቌों के मध्य राजीनामा किबना किकसी दबाव ्ቚलोभन एवं स्वेच्छापूव$क किकया जाना ्ቚतीत होता है। किववाकिदत राशिश के संबंध में ्ቚस्तुत राजीनामा आवेदन स्वीकार करते हुये आदेशिशत किकया जाता है किक स्व० ቇኋेंदराम की मृत्यु प्ቐात किवधुत किवभाቇኋ से उसे देयक राशिश 4,03,759/- (चार लाख तीन हजार सात सौ उनसठ रूपये) अपीलाቕኍ(cid:26)ቇኋण एवं उ्ቈरवादी ्ቅमांक 1,4,5,6,7 एवं 8 के मध्य बराबर बराबर किवभाजिजत किकये जाने हेतु उ्ቈराधिधकार ्ቚमाण प्ቔ जारी किकया जावे। अपीलाቕኍ(cid:26)ቇኋण ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत किवकिवध व्यवहार अपील राजीनामा के आधार पर खारिरज किकया जाता है।" 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph 3, it appears that although by virtue of the said compromise, the petitioner would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, while said Durga Bai would be entitled to avail the pensionary benefits, but in the aforesaid order, the Court had only directed for apportionment of the disputed amount in equal share amongst his (Gend Ram Rajak) heirs, as reflected from aforesaid paragraph 4. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute was pending before the said Court with regard to appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Be that as it may, after disposal of the said application filed under Section 372 of the Act, 1923, an application was made by the petitioner on 31/01/2017 (Annexure P-5) before the concerned respondent authorities seeking her appointment on compassionate ground. The Policy/Circular, which was in existence at the particular point of time, when said Gend Ram Rajak died on 15/09/2009, was the Circular dated 30/07/2013 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited (CSPHCL) and according to it, an application was required to be made within a period of 3 years from the date of death of the concerned employee. Since the application made on 31/01/2017 by the petitioner seeking her appointment on compassionate ground, 5 was much beyond the prescribed period of 3 years, therefore, the concerned respondent authorities, while taking note of the said Circular, have not committed any illegality in rejecting her claim, so as to call for any interference in this petition. 8. In view of the aforesaid background, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Chandrakant -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge