1 - Smt. Sushma Sahu W/o Late Kedarnath Sahu Aged About 55 Years House v. 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through General Manager Plot No. 47, Sector- 24
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6698 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sushma Sahu W/o Late Kedarnath Sahu Aged About 55 Years House Wife, R/o Sadak Chirchari Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Pin Code- 491557 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through General Manager Plot No. 47, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin- 492018 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Regional Manager, Regional Office G.E. Road Near Mundra Kunj Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Pin Code- 491441 (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08/07/2025 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed against the communication dated Nil/04/2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment in the respondent Bank VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.14 15:44:47 +0530 2 has been rejected. The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court pleased to called the entire record Pertain to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be quashed the impugned communication dated Nil/04/2022 issued by res. no. 2 and direct the respondent authority to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay all the dues of Late Kedarnath Sahu so far as illegal and unnecessary depriving the petitioner for her legal right for such long period. 10.4 Any other relief which the Hon'ble May dims fit and proper be awarded to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. The disputed fact in the instant case is that the husband of the present petitioner was an employee of the respondent Bank and had died in harness on 09-08-2013. The petitioner in the present case moved an application for compassionate appointment on 10-01-2014. Thereafter, the representation was again moved on 13-07-2017 and 19-07-2017, but the same has not been considered by the Bank authorities. On 29-07-2021, a letter was issued to the petitioner stating therein that at the time of death of her husband, there was no provision for compassionate appointment in the Bank and in lieu thereof, the provisions of payment of ex-gratia amount were there and the Bank has already paid the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to her. It has also been mentioned that the compassionate appointment policy has been applicable in the bank since 11-02-2019. Thereafter, the claim of 3 the petitioner for compassionate appointment is rejected by the impugned letter, Annexure P-1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the employee has died in harness in the year 2013, and the petitioner has been approaching the authorities since 2014. The family of the deceased employee cannot be thrown out by simply saying that in the year 2013, there was no policy of the bank for compassionate appointment. The other persons have been granted compassionate appointment, but the petitioner has not been granted which is discriminatory on the part of the respondent Bank. If the petitioner is held eligible for the ex gratia amount, then she is also entitled to compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and necessary direction may be issued to the respondent Bank. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank opposes and submits that the husband of the petitioner had died on 09-08-2013 and at that time, there was no policy for compassionate appointment in the bank, but the policy of ex gratia payment was there. The petitioner was also paid Rs. 6,00,000/- as an ex gratia amount. The policy for compassionate appointment came in the year 2019, and the same is not applicable to the petitioner because at the time of death of her husband, the employee has already died in the year 2013. Therefore, the action of the respondent Bank is strictly in accordance with the
Decision
rules and regulations applicable to the bank, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Undisputedly, the husband of the petitioner has died on 09-08-2013 while he was in service, and an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- has been paid to the petitioner towards ex gratia amount. The employee died in the year 2013, and the present writ petition is filed in the year 2015, which is about 12 years after the death of the employee. This Court, however, is of the opinion that the present petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches. 12 years is a considerable long period for making a claim for compassionate appointment, though the petitioner had been periodically making representations to the respondents. 7. The simple reason why this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition is that, if the applicant could survive for these 12 years without the appointment being granted to him, it gives a strong inference against the applicant that he had sufficient means to sustain himself. 8. Under the circumstances, exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 for considering the case of compassionate appointment after 12 years would open a Pandora box of those stale claim cases which have not been considered by the respondents till now or which have not been pressed by the respective claimants. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of “State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Another”, 2012 (9) SCC 545, has held as under: 5 “8. It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of recruitment. As claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased…………….” 10. The same view has further been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi”, 2013 (11) SCC 178. 11. The question of delay and laches also came to be considered by the Supreme Court in case of “State of Uttaranchal and Another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others” [2013 12 SCC 179] in which the court has declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in case the petitioner invokes jurisdiction of court with inordinate delay, and held as under:- “23. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, 2007 (10) SCC 137, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:- 16…...filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may 6 deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.” 12. Further, in the case of Local Administration Department and Another Vs. M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, 2011 (13) SCC 42, the Supreme Court reiterating the principles relating to compassionate appointment has held as under:- “11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. 12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having 7 regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors.....” 13. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the communication dated Nil/04/2022 (Annexure P-8) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge