High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22533 NAFR PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.05 17:30:15 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4076 of 2025 A. Jaipal S/o A. Tirufataiya Aged About 26 Years R/o Sivaji Nagar, Ews - 8, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Municipal Corporation Korba Through Its Commissioner, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Additional Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For State For Respondent No.3 &4 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Ms. A. : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Sandhya Rao, Advocate ... Respondent Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 05.06.2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, DIRECTION and direct the joint Director (respondent No.2) to consider and pass appropriate order on the recommendation dated 2 13.02.2024 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner by Commissioner Nagar Nigam Korba (C.G.) (respondent No.3) 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, DIRECTION and set aside the order dated 07.11.2021 passed by the Commissioner Nagar Nigam Korba (respondent No.3). 10.3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit be granted.” 3. Facts of the case, are that the father of the petitioner was appointed on 11.12.1982 as class IV employee (Safai Kaamgaar) in the Municipal Corporation Korba. The father of the petitioner died in harness while working under the Municipal Corporation Korba on 16.10.2020. Municipal Corporation Korba was duty bound to inform to the bereaved family that there is a provision of the compassionate appointment which was not informed in time. However the officials on enquiry informed the petitioner in the last week of February 2021 that there is a provision of compassionate appointment and as the CORONA Pandemic is severally spread and as soon as it will be over the petitioner will be given compassionate appointment. However it was asked the petitioner to fill and submit the application for compassionate appointment and accordingly the petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 04.03.2021. On enquiry it was informed by the officials that his application for compassionate appointment along with other persons are send to the office of the joint director and that is pending consideration before him. The officials of Nagar Nigam had also provided a letter dated 13.02.2024 written by Commissioner Nagar Nigam Korba to Joint Director seeking guidance with regard to grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner and two other persons. When considerable time was elapsed and no intimation with regard to grant of compassionate appointment was given to the petitioner, the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act. The authority supplied the copy of the order dated 07.11.2021 to the petitioner. Further, a bare perusal of the letter dated 3 13.02.2024 itself shows that order dated 07.11.2021 was placed under the Scrutiny committee and the Scrutiny Committee was of the view that a sympathetical consideration on the applications for compassionate appointment of the petitioner with two other persons are required and accordingly the Commissioner Nagar Palik Nigam send the letter to Joint Director seeking guidance on the matter. It has been more than 1 year the Joint Direction is sitting over the letter dated 13.02.2024 sent by Nagar Nigam. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction of the Joint Director over the recommendation sent by Nagar Nigam for more than one year is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been contended that the respondent authorities have failed to adhere to the principles and objectives underlying the compassionate appointment schemes, which aim to support bereaved families in distress, but the respondent authorities have ignored the petitioner's inability to apply within the stipulated time due to strikes in various departments, preventing documents. It has been further contended that the multiple representations made by the petitioner were left unanswered, showcasing administrative apathy, hence a direction be given to the respondent authorities to reconsider his case for grant of compassionate appointment. He placed reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Saurabh Chourasiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.5 passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.26461 of 2022 decided on 27.08.2024. 5. On the contrary, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
Decision
annexed with the writ petition. 4 7. It is a trite law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. 8. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, that family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the impugned order has been passed in a very casual and cursory manner, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order expeditiously preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. With the aforementioned observation/direction, instant writ petition is disposed of. Prakash Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge