Raigarh, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Department
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.25 11:10:56 +0530 2025:CGHC:39633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4451 of 2021 * - Pramod Kumar Rathiya S/o Late Shri Chamar Singh Rathiya Aged About 26 Years Occupation Un -Employed, R/o Village Ganpatpur, Post Saskoba, Thana And Tahsil Dharamjaygarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaygarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh For Petitioner For Respondents No. 1 & 2 / State For Respondent No. 3 & 4 : : : ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ayaz Naved, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3. 2 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner claim for compassionate appointment as per policy applicable on the date of death of employee and in view of the Policy issued by the GAD. 10.3 That any other / relief order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cost of the petition may kindly be passed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, namely Late Shri Chamar Singh Rathiya, was working in the office of Panchayat and Rural Development Department on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat. He died in harness on 21.03.2009. At that time, the petitioner, as well as his brother and sisters, were minors. Therefore, the petitioner’s mother had filed the application for compassionate appointment, with a request that the claim be considered once the petitioner attained majority. He would further submit that when the petitioner attained the age of majority, he filed an application for compassionate appointment. However, his application was rejected by applying the policy dated 27.02.2015, which prescribes that the required educational qualification must be acquired within 5 years. 3. It is argued that the said circular of 2015 was not applicable to the petitioner since his father had died in 2009, and thus the policy of 2003 or 2013 would apply. It is further submitted that the respondents committed a legal error in applying the policy dated 27.02.2015 3 retrospectively. The petitioner made several applications and representations, but all of a sudden, on 20.07.2021, when the petitioner’s mother visited the office of respondents No. 2 to 4, she came to know about the rejection of the application. Thereafter, she immediately filed a representation on 30.07.2021, but the same has not been considered. Thus, the impugned order runs contrary to the very object of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per the policy dated 27.02.2015 (Letter No. Pancha./Pangra Vivi/22/2015/44), there is a provision for compassionate appointment of the dependent members of the deceased Gram Panchayat Secretary. Clause 3 of the guidelines prescribes that the minimum educational qualification for appointment of Panchayat workers is passing the Higher Secondary Examination, with no relaxation even in cases of compassionate appointment. He would further submit that if the dependent does not possess the requisite qualification, he is given 5 years’ time to acquire it. In case of failure, the eligibility is automatically forfeited. The petitioner passed Class 12th in March 2015, i.e., after more than 5 years from the date of his father’s death (21.03.2009). Thus, his case was rightly rejected under Clause 5 of the circular dated 27.02.2015. 5. Heard learned State counsel and perused the documents placed on the record. 4 6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died on 21.03.2009 while working as Secretary, Gram Panchayat. The petitioner attained majority subsequently and passed Class 12th in March 2015, i.e., after 6 years from his father’s death. His application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents on 09.03.2018 (Annexure P-1). 7. In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under : "7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she 1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471 5 shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee. 8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh2, it has been held at paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under : "7. In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of the respondent. 8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same. 9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of the new policy which reads as under: "The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of instructions. The cases, where compassionate employment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite relief, in lieu 2. (2019) 6 SCC 774 6 compassionate employment, shall be granted as per above policy instructions." 9. Applying the above principles, it is evident that the father of the petitioner passed away in the year 2009, but the petitioner applied for appointment only after attaining majority and acquiring the educational qualification in 2015, i.e., beyond the prescribed 5-year limit. By then, more than 6 years had already lapsed from the date of death. The family had also survived the financial crisis for such a long time. 10. It is trite law that compassionate appointment has to be considered strictly in accordance with the scheme/policy prevailing at the relevant time. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement within the stipulated period of 5 years, he cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right.
Decision
11. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti