AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The challenge in the present writ petition is to Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3 dated 19.07.2016,13.04.2016 and 28.04.1999 respectively.
The facts relevant for proper adjudication of the present dispute is that the Husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 namely Satish
Dubey while working as Conductor with the respondents died in harness on 04.05.2002. Initially the petitioner No.1 had applied for grant of
compassionate appointment when the petitioner No.2 was a minor. However, the petitioner No.2 on attaining the age of majority, had applied for
compassionate appointment which stood rejected by the respondents on repeated occasions.
The deceased employee late Satish Dubey was working as Conductor under the erstwhile MPSRTC i.e. respondents No.4&5. In due course of
time by virtue of creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the services of the deceased employee fell within the territories of the State of Chhattisgarh. In
the State of Chhattisgarh since no State Transport Corporation was created, all the employees, assets and liabilities of the MPSRTC which had fallen
in the share of the State of Chhattisgarh were placed under the control of Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (in short, CIDC)
which was made the nodal agency so far as employees, assets and liabilities of MPSRTC is concerned in Chhattisgarh.
What is relevant at this juncture to be taken note of is the fact that the CIDC in the State of Chhattisgarh stood created vide notification dated
13.12.2002 and all the employees who had been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh working under the erstwhile MPSRTC and the entire assets and
liabilities came under the possession and control of the CIDC.
The stand of CIDC in not granting recruitment by way of compassionate appointment to the petitioner was on the ground that since the death of
employee was prior to creation of CIDC and there was no provision as such envisaged for grant of compassionate appointment of employees who had
died under the control of MPSRTC. It is further to be taken note of that on 13.04.2004 the claim of the petitioner stood rejected for the first time
which was assailed in WPS No.1557 of 2004 and the petition stood disposed of on 10.02.2015. While disposing of the petition it was ordered as under :
“Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her
appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law/existing circular, and pass reasoned order within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.â€
Subsequently, the claim of the petitioner was again rejected on 24.03.2015 by the respondents which again was challenged in writ petition vide WPS
No.1463 of 2015 which stood disposed of on
11.01.2016. While disposing of the petition, it was ordered as under :
“The petitioners are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment as per the policy applicable as on 4-5-2002 i.e. the date of death of
the deceased employee. Therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-2 is quashed and the CIDC is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in
accordance with the policy relating to compassionate appointment as it was in force on 4-5-2002 â€" on the date of death of husband and father of the
petitioners, respectively, and decide the same expeditiously within forty-five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the
petitioners are entitled to produce representation / document in support of their claim for compassionate appointment.â€
Against which a Review Petition was also preferred vide Review Petition No.14 of 2016 which ultimately stood withdrawn with an assurance that
the respondent-corporation would comply the earlier order dated 11.01.2016 passed in WPS No.1463 of 2015. Yet, when the respondents did not
comply with the order, a contempt was initiated against the officers of the CIDC. The contempt case also stood disposed of on 07.07.2016 granting
further time to the contemnor for compliance of the directives given in WPS No.1463 of 2015. It is thereafter that Annexure P/1 has been passed on
19.07.2016 intimating that on earlier occasions also the claim of the petitioner stood rejected vide Annexure P/2 dated 13.04.2016.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner was that the circular of the State Govt. dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure R/1) issued by the General
Administration Department in respect of compassionate appointment to the employees under CIDC squarely applies in the case of the petitioner also.
Since the MPSRTC stood dissolved and the deceased employee was an employee of erstwhile MPSRTC, their case also should have been considered
for compassionate appointment as per the decision of the State Govt. vide Annexure R/1 dated 19.07.2011. According to the petitioners, the
respondent-CIDC have in the past granted similar relief to similarly placed person where the deceased employee was one Manmohan Singh and his
wife's case was considered for compassionate appointment.
If we look into the policy of the State Govt. dated 19.07.2011, it would clearly reflect that the policy so far as grant of compassionate appointment
to the dependents of the deceased employee of MPSRTC who have come under the CIDC is concerned, the same shall be only in respect of those
cases where the death of the deceased employee was on or after 01.01.2003. For ready reference, Clause-2 of the policy dated 19.07.2011 reads as
under:
**2- jkT; 'kklu }kjk NRrhlxds in ij vuqdaik fu;qfDRk nsus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA vr,o bl laca/k esa vuqdaik fu;fDr ds fy, fuEukuqlkj O;oLFkk@izfdz;k laca/kh funsZ'k tkjh fd,
tkrs gSA bUgha funZs'kksa ds rgr vuqdaik fu;qfDRk dh tk ldsxh& fUkn sZ 'k
1- izkj aH k & ;s funsZ'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksaxsA
2- foLrkj ,o aa ykx w gk su k &;s funsZ'k dsoy fnukad 01-01-2003 ;k mlds i'pkkr NRrhlxx, fo?kfVRk ifjogu fuxe ds ,sls leLr O;fDr;ksa dks ykxw gksaxs tks fu;fer in ij lsokjr jgrs gq, fnoaxr gq, gksa] ds vkfJr lnL; dks f'k{kkdehZ oxZ&3 ds
in ij vuqdaik fu;qfDRk iznku fd;s tkus ls lacaf/kr ekeyksa ij ykxw gksaxsA**
From the aforesaid clause it is evidently clear that the CIDC would be liable to consider grant of compassionate appointment in all those cases
where the deceased employee had died on or after 01.01.2003. In the instant case the deceased late Satish Dubey died on 04.05.2002 i.e. before
creation of the CIDC. The CIDC came into existence vide notification dated 31.12.2002.
If we look into the relief clause, the petitioner has only challenged Annexure P/1 & P/2 i.e. the rejection of the claim applications. The scheme for
compassionate appointment has not been challenged. Unless the scheme for compassionate appointment of the respondent-corporation is held to be
bad in law and illegal, the claim of the petitioner would not fructify.
The respondent-corporation would be bound to consider the claim of the petitioner only in accordance with the policy for compassionate
appointment prevalent in the department. The authorities concerned could not have modified the scope of consideration beyond the conditions
stipulated in the policy. It is also settled proposition of law that the claim for compassionate appointment could be considered only in accordance with
scheme for compassionate appointment prevailing in the department. So far as CIDC is concerned, as per circular they would consider grant of
compassionate appointment to a person only in the event of death of deceased employee being on or after 01.01.2003. The rational behind the cut of
date being given as 01.01.2003 is the fact that the CIDC came into existence itself on 31.12.2002 and they could not have taken a decision otherwise
than that they have taken in the case of the petitioner unless the policy itself stood amended.
In the absence of any challenge to the policy, the decision of the respondents in rejecting the claim application of the petitioners cannot be said to
be either bad in law or contrary to the policy. So far as directives given by this court in WPS No.1463 of 2015 is concerned, it was only a direction for
considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per the policy prevailing. After due consideration, if the respondents have
rejected the claim of the petitioners holding that the policy does not permit the petitioners to be granted compassionate appointment, the same cannot
be held to be bad in law.
For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the opinion that no strong case is made out for grant of any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition
deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.