Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.09 14:54:40 +0530 2025:CGHC:30546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5395 of 2018 1 - Parmeshwar Jagat S/o Late Shri Bhopalrao Jagat Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Rawabhata, Adarsh Nagar Ward No. 3, (Oriyapara) Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through The Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Deputy General Manager (H.R.D.), Electricity Service Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/07/2025 Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to call the record of the petitioner. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to consider the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-16 with other relevant inter office communication and to pass appropriate order of compassionate appointment in the interest of justice. 2 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass any appropriate writ, order or directin to the respondents in the circumstances of the case. 2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely late Bhopal Rao Jagat was working in the post of Assistant Engineer under the respondents, who died on 17.12.1996 as he sustained injuries. The mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 30.05.1997 for the grant of compassionate appointment because, on the date of the death of Late Bhopal Rao Jagat, her son was aged about 16 years. A reminder application was sent by the petitioner on 24.09.1997. After attaining the majority, the petitioner moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment on 20.04.2000. When no decision was taken, WPS No. 2118/2015 was
Decision
filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.06.2015, wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner according to the Policy/Circular dated 30.01.1997. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 01.03.2016 on the ground that the application for the grant of compassionate appointment was not moved within the prescribed limitation of one year according to the Policy dated 30.01.1997. 3. Mr. J.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the first application was moved by the mother of the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner on 30.05.1997 after 06 months from the date of the death of his father. He would further contend that a reminder application was sent on 24.09.1997, thus, the findings recorded by the respondent authorities are incorrect. He would further contend that the petitioner again moved a fresh application on 3 20.04.2000 after attaining the majority and when that application was not considered, he filed a writ petition and pursuant to a direction issued by the High Court, his application was considered and rejected on 01.03.2016. He would also submit that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to be appointed against any vacant and sanctioned post under the respondents. He would pray that the order dated 01.03.2016 may be quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhshek Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. J.K. Gupta. Mr. Abhishek Sinha would submit that the father of the petitioner died on 17.12.1996, but the petitioner has not arrayed the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short 'MPEB') as a party respondent as in the year 1996, the father of the petitioner was an employee of MPEB. He would further contend that initially, an application was moved by the mother of the petitioner on his behalf, but the fresh application was moved by the petitioner claiming therein compassionate appointment after 04 years on 20.04.2000, particularly after attaining the majority. He would further contend that in the Policy/Circular dated 30.01.1997, it is provided that the application for compassionate appointment must be moved within a period of 01 year from the date of the death of the employee. He would also contend that the application was moved after 04 years, therefore, it has been rejected by the respondent authorities. He would further argue that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 01.03.2016 whereby his application was rejected. He would also argue that the father of the petitioner was working in the post of Assistant Engineer, therefore, the 4 petitioner was financially secure. It is also contended that the petitioner has survived for more than 30 years therefore the grant of compassionate appointment would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that in the matter of Amit Rao vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. And others in WPS No. 363/2015 and other connected matters dated 06.05.2015, the writ petitions were disposed of in the light of order passed in the matter of Raja Ram Kosle. He would further contend that the coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Raja Ram Kosle vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. & others decided on 08.04.2015 in WPS No. 360/2015, had issued a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the dependent in light of the earlier judgments passed in similar matters including the order passed by the Division Bench in WA No. 588/2013 dated 10.11.2014, parties being Tamradhwaj Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. wherein it was held that the claim for compassionate appointment must be made by the eligible candidate within one year of the death and if the period of one year has expired during the minority of the candidate, it cannot be construed that the post was to be kept reserved for him to enable him to apply and be considered after he attains the majority. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Engineer, died on 17.12.1996. An application was moved by the petitioner on 20.04.2000. The petitioner filed WPS No. 2118/2015 5 seeking direction to decide his application and the following direction was issued:- “Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in Amit Rao (supra).” 7. The respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it was moved at a belated stage. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Tamradhwaj Verma (supra) has categorically held that the claim for compassionate appointment must be made by the eligible candidate within one year of the death according to the Circular dated 30.01.1997 and if the period of one year expired during the minority of such a candidate, it cannot be construed that the post was to be kept reserved for him on the basis of descent to enable him to apply and be considered after he attains the majority. Relevant Para-7 is reproduced herein below:- “7. The Circular dated 30.01.1997 provided that the claim for compassionate appointment must be made by the eligible within one year of death. If this period of one year expired during the minority of the appellant because of which he was unable to apply, It cannot be construed that the post was to be kept reserved for him on basis of descent to enable him to apply and be considered after he attains majority. The right to apply lost its efficacy after one year from the date of death and the appellant being a minor unable to apply was an irrelevant consideration for the purpose. It is not the case of the appellant that the Rules provided for an application to be submitted within a prescribed time after attaining majority.” 6 8. In the present case, the father of the petitioner was an employee of the MPEB, but MPEB has not been arrayed as a party respondent. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family and after a lapse of 30 years, I don't feel such an appointment would serve the object of compassionate appointment. Further, it appears that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 01.03.2016, whereby his claim was rejected by respondent No.1, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. 9. It is well settled principles of law that if a dependent has survived by for considerable period, there is no need to provide him compassionate appointment as compassionate appointment is back door entry and it is in contravention to the constitutional mandate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing this issue compassionate appointment in the matter of State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, AIR Online 2022 SC 471 has held in paragraph Nos. 7 and 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. Applying the law laid down by this Court in 7.1 the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on 7 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 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.” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Other Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774, held in paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under:- In our view there is more than one impediment “:7. in the way of the respondent. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts 8. 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. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant 9. 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 compassionate employment, shall be granted as per above policy instructions.” 8 11. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti