1 - Govardhan Das Mahilang S/o Late Shri Dayaluram Mahilang Aged About 39 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8441 of 2024 1 - Govardhan Das Mahilang S/o Late Shri Dayaluram Mahilang Aged About 39 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Ward No. 03, Indira Colony, Sonpuri Road, Balodabazar, Tahsil Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Headquarters, Block-7a, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dy. Assistant General Manager (Administration), Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Headquarters, Block-7a, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Collector, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ... Respondents 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Yash Kumar Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WA No.842/2024 vide order dated 12.12.2024 has confirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge in which the claim for compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that one of the family member is in government service. The relevant para is quoted hereinbelow:- “13.Learned Single Judge further held that it is not in dispute that the mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi as such, it cannot be said that deceased employees died in harness entitled the 5 appellant to get compassionate appointment. Even the retiral dues of the Government Servant along with emoluments earned by the family members of the Shiksha Karmi who are now government servant cannot be said to be insufficient to fall the appellant within the ambit of sudden financial crisis or penury. The financial crisis or penury is basic parameter for consideration of compassionate appointment in view of the object and policy framed by the Government regarding grant of compassionate appointment. As such, the action of the respondents authorities in canceling the appointment or not issuing appointment
Arguments
:- Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State :- Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 07.01.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned letter dated 14/11/2024 (Annexure P-4) issued by the respondent No. 3 and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to allow the application of petitioner dated 19/10/2024 (Annexure P-5) submitted to the respondent No. 2&3 for compassionate appointment, as the matter is continuously pending since 2018. 10.2 That, any other reliefs which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioner including cost of the litigation.” 2. The instant writ petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 05.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the application/claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case in brief is that after the death of one Late Dayalu Ram Mahilang, father of the petitioner, who was posted on the post of driver in the respondent corporation, his one son 3 Ramcharan Mahilang was given compassionate appointment on the post of peon and after the death of late Ramcharan Mahilang, the petitioner, being dependent on late Ramcharan Mahilang, had submitted the application for compassionate appointment on 19.02.2018 along with all relevant documents in the District Office of the Corporation, Kabirdham, but the same has been rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 05.05.2018 on the ground that the petitioner's younger brother namely Ikaleshwar Mahilang is a government servant in C.G. Armed Forces, therefore, in view of policy of State Government, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner has made another application on 19.10.2024, whereby he has requested for reconsideration of his case for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground of his dependency on the deceased late Ramcharan Mahilang, but till date, his representation has not been considered and decided. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set-aside. He submits that the petitioner was fully dependent upon the deceased brother Ramcharan Mahilang, who used to provide money to the petitioner for his livelihood. He submits that as the petitioner was fully depended upon the deceased brother Ramcharan Mahilang and after his death, the petitioner is not able to maintain himself and his family and is facing great difficulties to survive, therefore, he is in extreme need 4 to get an employment on compassionate ground, so that he may survive. He further submits that in an identical case bearing WPS No. 3665 of 2021, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed order and the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the said order. Accordingly, the said impugned order may be set-aside and the present petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since younger brother of the petitioner is already in government job, as such, in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, the candidature of the petitioner/applicant has been rejected and in the absence of any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondent authority cannot be said to be illegal and bad in law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Decision
order to the appellant on compassionate ground is justified on the count that mother of the appellant is working as Shiksha Karmi who is not government servant still he is in gainful employment and it cannot be held that appellant is having sudden financial or pecuniary crisis, as such, the order of cancellation of appointment is legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 6 8. Taking into consideration the present case in hand, since the younger brother of the petitioner is already in government service, as such, according to policy for compassionate appointment of the State Government, he cannot be given compassionate appointment. The policy of the State Government has been confirmed by the learned Single Bench as also the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha