Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 723 (CHH)

Raksha Dubey v. Director, Sericulture

2018-11-19

P.SAM KOSHY

body2018
ORDER : P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to order (Annexure-P/1) dated 15.11.2017 whereby the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay. 2. The fact of the case is that father of the petitioner was working as an Operative Clerk "Pravakt". He died in harness on 09.10.2002. At the time of the death of deceased employee, the petitioner was hardly 2-3 years of age and she was the sole child of the deceased employee. The petitioner's mother was an illiterate rustic villager unaware of her rights. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner approached the department for considering her claim for compassionate appointment which vide the impugned order stands rejected leading to the present writ petition. 3. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the stand taken by the authority is that of delay of a period about 15 years. However, it would be relevant at this juncture to judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A. No. 537 of 2015 (Pushpendra Nath Sonesare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) decided on 10.09.2018 where the facts of the said appeal were somewhat similar if not identical to the facts of the present case. The only difference which appears to be the intervening period in the said case, the delay was about 51/2 years and the present case it is about 15 years. Otherwise, the contention and the stand raised in either of the cases appears to the same. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-- "4. The relevant portion of the policy which governs the cases of compassionate appointment is part of the record as Annexure P/5 and dated 10.06.2003. This was supposed to be in operation at the time when consideration of the application of the Appellant was made by the Respondent authorities. The relevant portion of the policy which governs the cases of compassionate appointment is part of the record as Annexure P/5 and dated 10.06.2003. This was supposed to be in operation at the time when consideration of the application of the Appellant was made by the Respondent authorities. The portion which has significance to the adjudication to the said policy is Clause 9(1) and 9(2) which are reproduced here-in-below: ^^¼9½ vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k & 1- vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu i= layXu ifjf'k"V &^,d^ esa n'kkZ, izi= esa ml dk;kZy; izeq[k@foHkkx izeq[k] ftlesa fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod viuh e`R;q ds iwoZ dk;Zjr Fkk] dks izLrqr fd;k tkosxkA vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k vkosnu izLrqr gksus ds rhu ekg ds Hkhrj iw.kZ dh tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 2- 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q gksus ij e`r 'kkldh; lsod ds lanHkZ esa dk;kZy; izeq[k ;k fu;qfDrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ,d ekg ds Hkhrj vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq fu/kkZfjr vkosnu i= dh izfr vko';d ekxZn'kZu ds lkFk e`rd ds ifjokj dks miyC/k djk,xkA ;fn e`rd ds ifjokj esa dksbZ mfpr ik=rk izkIr lnL; ugha gS] rks mldh lwpuk foHkkxk/;{k dks izsf"kr dj izfr lacf/kr ifjokj ds lnL; dks miyC/k djk;sxkA^^ 5. From reading of Clause 9(2), it is evident that the State authorities themselves have created an obligation upon the Head of Department to send a copy of the application form, which is prescribed, alongwith the relevant guidelines to the family members of the deceased employee. If there is no eligible person capable of being appointed on compassionate ground, then even this information is required to be given to the Head of the Department. 6. No such exercise has been done by the State authorities, much less the Head of Department in relation to the issue of providing compassionate appointment to eligible family member. The mother is said to be an illiterate lady and was incapable of being employed. The Appellant was a minor, who obviously lacked the full import not only on the death of his father, but also any right for consideration for compassionate appointment. When he attained majority, he filed the application but then the authorities have taken a hyper-technical view that it is delayed by 554 years. 7. The Appellant was a minor, who obviously lacked the full import not only on the death of his father, but also any right for consideration for compassionate appointment. When he attained majority, he filed the application but then the authorities have taken a hyper-technical view that it is delayed by 554 years. 7. From reading of Clause 9(1), this Court does not get any indication that any time frame has been fixed for making such application for compassionate appointment, though there is a time limit fixed for taking of a decision for such application, which is three months. 8. On reading the provisions of Clause 9(1) and 9(2), it is evident that the reason for rejection which is said to be a delay of 514 years is, therefore, beyond the ambit of guidelines issued by the State authorities. Not only that, there seems to be violation on their part when they failed to carry out their obligation for sending an application form to the family members of deceased employee or apprising them of their rights and obligations by providing guidelines in this regard. 9. In our opinion, therefore, filing of an application in the year 2008 soon after attainment of majority by the Appellant before the authorities cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The impugned order therefore dated 16.01.2009 which was Annexure P/1 to the writ application along with the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ application are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the competent authority of the State to take a fresh decision on merits, not on the basis of delay which was the reason for rejection of the claim of the Appellant. Such a decision must be taken by the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of certified copy of this order." 4. The plain study and the observation made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ appeal would make things clear that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner under said circumstances would be inappropriate and unjustified. 5. Another aspect which cannot be brushed aside is the fact that the scheme for compassionate appointment is otherwise introduced by the department or State Government as a Social Security Scheme for the employee working under them. 5. Another aspect which cannot be brushed aside is the fact that the scheme for compassionate appointment is otherwise introduced by the department or State Government as a Social Security Scheme for the employee working under them. There could be circumstances where the claim of the legal heirs of the deceased employee would be ineligible for getting an employment at the relevant time on account of they not having the minimum eligibility criteria for government employment. That after achieving the minimum eligibility criteria if they apply for the same it cannot be rejected only on the ground of having approached the department at a belated stage. What needs to be considered is as to from the date the claimant has attained the minimum eligibility criteria he has approached the department within a reasonable time or not. In the instant case, it appears that the claimant had immediately on. Her attaining the age of majority approached the department. 6. Given the said facts, this Court is of the opinion that in the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the aforementioned judgment of Pushpendra Nath Sonesare (supra) the impugned order in the present writ petition is also not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside and respondent No. 2 is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with the scheme prevailing ignoring the fact of delay. 7. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.