Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Power Distribution Company Limited, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar
Case Details
Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:9564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3970 of 2018 1 - Prahlad Halba S/o Late Shri Balak Ram Arya, Aged About 20 Years R/o Frajerpur Dongripara, Near Water Tank, Sanjay Gandhi Ward No. 34, : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., And Disrict District Tehsil versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Power Distribution Company Limited, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Engineer Of Stores, C.S.P.D.C.L., Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the year 2018 whereas her claim was rejected vide orders dated 11.5.2016 & 9.6.2016. She has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tinku vs. State of Haryana & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024 and Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K., Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025. 5 6. In the matter of Tinku (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the policies are framed for a compassionate appointment with the object of granting relief to a family in distress and facing destitution. The purpose of such a policy is to give immediate succour to the family. It is further observed that the dependent attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father and thus, the same has rightly been rejected by the respondent/State. Paragraphs 14, 15 & 16 are reproduced herein below:- “14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner. 15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family. When seen in this conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right. 16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father. The claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The decisions of the High Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with.” 7. In the matter of Canara Bank (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in “hand-to-mouth” cases a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted if at all other -6- conditions are satisfied. It is further held that no appointment on compassionate grounds ought to be made as if it is a matter of course or right, being blissfully oblivious of the laudable object of any policy/scheme on this behalf. Paragraphs 29 & 30 are reproduced herein below:- “29. The second sub-issue pertains to the real objective sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment. We have noticed the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and construe such objectives as salutary for deciding any claim for compassionate appointment. The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand- to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is ‘below poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner. 30. The observation in Kunti Tiwary (supra) noted above seems to assume significance and we draw inspiration therefrom in making the observation that no appointment on compassionate ground ought to be made as if it is a matter of course or right, being blissfully oblivious of the laudable object of any policy/scheme in this behalf.” 8. In the present case, the petitioner has categorically stated in
Arguments
: Shri Ritesh Verma, Advocate. : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 that, the respondents may kindly be directed to submit the entire records as regards the petitioner’s case. 10.2. that, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider within certain period the application/ representation (Annexure.P/1) of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in his favour. As the petitioner is poor, his case may be considered benevolently. -2- 10.3. that, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any order or issue any suitable writ as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition.” 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the father of the petitioner, namely Balak Ram Arya was an employee working in the office of Assistant Engineer of Stores, Electricity Board, Jagdalpur. He was appointed to the said post on 22.3.1985 and his services were regularized on 4.1.1992. He died in harness on 29.9.1996. The petitioner moved an application for the compassionate appointment after attaining the majority on 27.11.2014. Respondent No.2 rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 9.6.2016 on two grounds: (1) Only dependents of the employee would be entitled to the compassionate appointment, (2) one of the dependents of the employee would be entitled to the compassionate appointment if he died during the course of employment or suffered any kind of disability or employees who died after 15.11.2000. The petitioner filed this petition on 18.5.2018, seeking therein a direction to the respondents to decide his representation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the father of the petitioner was a regular employee under the respondents, who died in harness, therefore, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered. He would contend that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to be appointed against a vacant and sanctioned post. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed in W.A. No.537 of 2015 parties being Pushpendra Nath Sonesare vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, wherein it was 3 observed that at the time of the death of the employee, the dependent was a minor between 11 or 12 years of age, he moved an application after attaining the age of majority and it was rejected on the ground of delay. It was further observed that there was no eligible person capable of being appointed on compassionate grounds at the time of the death of the employee; the dependent was a minor; he moved an application after attaining the majority and there was a delay of 5 ½ years then the authorities took a hyper-technical view. Paragraphs 3 & 6 of the judgment are reproduced herein below:- “3. No doubt, compassionate appointment is not a fundamental right, however, it is still creature of a policy. So long as the policy exists, the “dos and don'ts” will flow therefrom. As for the present case is concerned, admitted position is that the father of the Appellant was an Assistant Teacher who died in harness on 23.12.2002. At the time of death of the erstwhile employee, the Appellant was minor between 11 or 12 years of age. He moved the authorities for consideration soon after attaining the age of majority for which an application was filed sometimes in August, 2008. It came to be rejected by the Respondent authorities vide their order dated 16.01.2009 on the ground of delay. 6. No such exercise has been done by the State authorities, much less the Head of Department in relation to the issue of providing compassionate appointment to eligible family member. The mother is said to be an illiterate lady and was incapable of being employed. The Appellant was a minor, who obviously lacked the full import not only of the death of his father, but also any right for consideration for compassionate appointment. When he attained majority, he filed the application but then the authorities have taken a hyper-technical view that it is delayed by 5½ years.” 4. In the matter of Ku. Jyoti Sahu vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited and Ors. in W.A. No. 606 of 2018, the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that at the time frame of one year provided in the policy for compassionate appointment proved -4- illusory as the application was moved immediately after attaining the majority. The relevant paragraphs 3 & 5 are reproduced herein below:- “3. No doubt, the death of Gopal Sahu, a Line Attendant Grade- II happened on 02.08.2006 but since the mother was illiterate so ineligible to claim benefit of compassionate appointment and the present appellant was a minor. The time frame of one year therefore proved illusory. No sooner she attained majority she applied on 11.11.2013 as is her case. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that the application so made by the appellant was not within one year of her attaining majority but beyond that. These are factual issues which can be very well looked into while re-considering her claim for compassionate appointment. The principles however governing compassionate appointment otherwise will surely be required to be kept in mind.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the father of the petitioner died on 29.9.1996. The petitioner attained majority in the year 2012 whereas the application for compassionate appointment was moved on 27.11.2014 which was returned by respondent No.2 on 11.5.2016. She would further submit that the petitioner has not challenged the orders dated 11.5.2016 & 9.6.2016 in the present petition though these documents have been annexed as Annexure-P/2 with the writ petition. She would further contend that the petitioner approached
Decision
paragraph 7 of the writ petition that there is no delay in filing the instant petition. The application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment would reflect his date of birth was 5.8.1994 and thus, he attained majority in the year 7 2012. However, the application for a compassionate appointment was moved on 27.11.2014 after a delay of two years. The policy dated 30.1.1997 prescribes a limitation period of one year to move an application for the compassionate appointment. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on different grounds vide orders dated 11.5.2016 and 09.06.2016 and the order dated 09.06.2016 was communicated to the petitioner, however, he preferred this writ petition on 18.5.2018. It is evident from the pleadings and reliefs sought, that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 9.6.2016. Therefore, the facts of the case of Ku. Jyoti Sahu (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tinku (supra) has categorically held that the policies are framed for the compassionate appointment with the object of granting relief to a family in distress and facing destitution. In the present case, the petitioner has approached the authorities after a lapse of 18 years from the date of death and further, the petitioner has not impleaded the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board as a respondent, despite the fact that at the time of the death, the father of the petitioner was an employee of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. 10.Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge