1 - A. Neelkaant Naidu S/o Late Shri A. Ganesh Naidu Aged About 21 v. 1 - Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar General, Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Details
Page 1 of 12 2025:CGHC:19789 NAFR Reserved On : 06.02 .2025 Pronounced On : 01 .05.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4738 of 2022 1 - A. Neelkaant Naidu S/o Late Shri A. Ganesh Naidu Aged About 21 Years R/o Near Uslapur Bridge, Back Side Of Mausaji White House, House, Anand Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar General, Chhattisgarh High Court, Bodri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Additional Registrar Chhattisgarh High Court Bodri Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattigarh. 3 - Richa Naidu D/o A. Ganesh Naidu, Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 400, Ganesh Nag, Sai Vihar Collony, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) -Respondents ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For R1 and R2 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing Memo dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P/2) by which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of Page 2 of 12 compassionate appointment dated 09.02.2022 has been rejected. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that father of the petitioner was working as Peon in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) and died in harness on 16/06/2010. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 09.02.2022. The said application was rejected by the respondent authorities vide memorandum dated 26/05/2022. 3. The High Court has filed their return and have contended that after carefully considering the application the facts reveal to the respondents are that the petitioner’s father in his nomination form dated 24.01.2002 has mentioned name of his wife Pooja Naidu as first nominee and daughter Richa Naidu as second nominee and in the list of family members he has mentioned Smt. Pooja Naidu as wife, Ku. Geeta Naidu, Ku. Anjali Naidu, Ku. Richa Naidu and A. Neelkant Naidu the petitioner and Nephew A. Shreenu Naidu as family members. The wife of the deceased employee Pooja Naidu after birth of her daughter Richa Naidu has undergone TT operation and also had taken the benefit of two increments as evident from the affidavit dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure R/2). At the time of death of Ganesh Naidu, his wife Pooja Naidu was already working in the High Court, therefore, there was no occasion to grant compassionate appointment. Unfortunately, Pooja Naidu also expired during service in the High Court. Therefore, the High Court has granted compassionate appointment to Richa Naidu who was only dependent of the deceased Pooja Naidu. She has already been removed by the High Court. Thus very object of the compassionate appointment has already been exhausted. Thereafter, after 11 years of the death of Ganesh Naidu the present Page 3 of 12 petitioner has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment claiming himself to be son and dependent upon the deceased employee on 09.02.2022. The High Court committee has considered the entire facts and it was revealed that the deceased has no where mentioned that the petitioner to be his son in the latest nomination form. The wife of deceased employee Pooja Naidu had also submitted an affidavit wherein she has mentioned that from her wedlock with Ganesh Naidu only one female child was born and rest of the children are of elder brother of the deceased employee. Therefore, his application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. It has been further contended that on the
Decision
count of delay and latches the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further contended that the petitioner’s father expired on 16.06.2010 and the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been filed after 12 years. For these long period of 12 years he survived, as such also the object of grant of compassionate appointment to grant immediate relief to the family members who have lost their sole bread-earner is achieved, therefore, on this count also the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for taking additional document on record whereby he has filed an affidavit of Usha Murti who is sister-in-law of the deceased employee (Bhabhi, wife of deceased late Narshih Murti elder brother of the deceased employee) stating that the affidavit filed by Late Pooja Naidu is incorrect. She has submitted that the petitioner is not her son. In fact, the deceased employee/ father of the petitioner had two wives namely Reshma Naidu first wife and Pooja Naidu second wife. The deceased had three children including the petitioner from his first wife Reshma Naidu and only one child Page 4 of 12 namely Richa Naidu was born from his second wife Late Pooja. As such, deceased employee was father of all the children. 5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder contending that the compassionate appointment granted to Richa Naidu has been withdrawn and she is not claiming any appointment, even otherwise, second wife is a separate entity and other daughters of the first wife of the deceased employee are not claiming compassionate appointment, therefore, he may be granted benefit of compassionate appointment. 6. Learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner would submit that vide circular dated 14.06.2013, dependent son is entitled for compassionate appointment, therefore, rejection of the compassionate appointment to the petitioner is illegal and against the well settled principles of law. He would further submit that after the death of his father, he is facing lot of financial difficulties in taking care of his family which include his mother and his sister and they have no other source of income. Therefore, he would pray for grant of compassionate appointment and allowing the writ petition. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of this Court in Sagar Chand vs. State of Chhattisgarh {WPS NO. 3920/2021 dt. 29.07.2021} and Smt. Sarojni Bhoi vs. Staten of Chhattisgarh {WPS No. 296/2014 dated 30.11.2015}. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the count that he has failed to establish that he is the son of the deceased employee. The deceased employee has nominated his wife and his daughter Richa Naidu as nominee. Only inclusion of petitioner’s name in Page 5 of 12 the list of family does not entitle him for grant of compassionate appointment. She would further submit that the nominee wife Pooja Naidu who was also an employee of the Court had submitted an affidavit on 08.07.2014 stating that only Richa Naidu is their only daughter, rest of the children in the family including the petitioner were children of elder brother of her husband the deceased employee. The said affidavit has been made part of the service record of the late Pooja Naidu. Richa Naudu has been granted compassionate appointment on the demise of Late Pooja Naidu. Therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. She would further submit that at the time of death of the deceased employee his wife late Pooja Naidu was in service. As per Clause 6A of the circular and in light of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs. Umesh Thakur {WA No. 236/2022 dated 21.06.2023}, if any other member of the family is in Government service, then other family members are not eligible for compassionate appointment. Further the claim for compassionate appointment has been submitted after lapse of 11 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, therefore, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be rejected and does not call for any interference and would pray for dismissing the writ petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost satisfaction. 10. From the submissions made by the parties the points emerged for determination of this Court are :- Page 6 of 12 A) Whether the High Court under its writ jurisdiction can declare petitioner to be son of deceased employee for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment when disputed facts exist. B) Whether after grant of compassionate appointment to one of the family members the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment is sustainable ? Discussion and finding on Point No. 1 11. The petitioner is the son of the deceased employee or not is being considered by this Court. The record annexed with the writ petition and the return would clearly demonstrate that the deceased employee in his nomination form dated 03.12.2008, has submitted the list of family members in which name of present petitioner was mentioned but in the subsequent nomination forms in the month of July, 2009 and 17.08.2009 the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the list of family members. Deceased Pooja Naidu wife of the deceased employee has claimed benefits of T.T. operation therefore, the High Court has sought clarification wherein Pooja Naidu clarified that she had only one daughter from the deceased employee and rest of the children are of elder brother of the deceased employee. Accordingly, after her death compassionate appointment has been granted to the daughter Richa Naidu. Even, in the clarification she has clearly stated that present petitioner is son of elder brother of the deceased Ganesh Naidu which creates dispute about genealogy of the petitioner. Since, disputed facts with regard to declaration of the petitioner being son of A Ganesh Naidu have arisen which cannot be adjudicated and declared by the High Court in writ jurisdiction, as such, Page 7 of 12 remedy of civil law is available to the petitioner of filing civil suit for declaration before the competent civil court. It is also well settled position of law that once the disputed facts are involved normally the High Court should not entertain the writ petition as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Radhkrishna Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh {2021 (6) SCC 771} which reads as under :- 26. Following the dictum of this Court in Whirlpool (supra), in Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.22, this court noted that “7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] .) The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the appellants' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings.” (emphasis supplied) 27. The principles of law which emerge are that : (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or Page 8 of 12 (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. 12. Since, a dispute has been created by the wife of the deceased employee who herself was an employee of the High Court, regarding the paternity of the petitioner which can be ascertained only after recording of evidence and by the competent civil court, the writ petition on account of the disputed facts is not maintainable before this Court. Accordingly, the point No. 1 is answered against the petitioner. Discussion and finding on Point No. 2 13. To decide this point it is expedient for this court to go through the object of grant of compassionate appointment which is subject matter of deliberation and discussion in catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Various High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Canara Bank vs. Ajit Kumar {2025 INSC 184} has considered the aims and object of the compassionate appointment and has held that under which contingencies and circumstances the claim of compassionate appointment can be considered. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as Page 9 of 12 under:- 11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order): a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions