Someshwar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28.1.2014, Annexure P-1, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents.

Though no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order as to why the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, the return which has been filed by the respondents in their writ petition, in paragraph 5, it has been held that the rejection of the petitioner was invoking clause 20 of the scheme for compassionate appointment applicable in the government employment as per the revised instruction dated 14.6.2013 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. For ready reference clause 20 of the said revised instruction is reproduced herein under:

अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति प्राप्त होने पर उपबंधः-

आवेदक को एक बार अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति दिए जाने के पश्चात् उसके किसी अन्य पद पर अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति देने अथवा पद परिवर्तित करने की मांग स्वीकार नहीं की जाएगी।

आश्रित परिवार के किसी सदस्य को दी गई अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति, परिवार के किसी अन्य सदस्य को हस्तांतरित नहीं होगी।

On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it would reveal that the provision of clause 20 would apply only in the event of an employment having been given to one of the family members of the deceased employee. It is for this very reason that this Court on 1.5.2018 had directed the petitioner so also the respondents to file an affidavit specifying whether any person in the family of the deceased employee i.e. Late Ishwar Prasad Yadav has been offered employment at any point of time or not. The petitioner has in compliance of the order filed an affidavit on 14.5.2018 along with the affidavit of the other family members stating that at no point of time have they ever been offered appointment on compassionate ground by the respondents. In spite of almost about three months' time being provided to the respondents, till date the respondents have not filed any affidavit nor have they filed any additional affidavit to counter this contention of the petitioner.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the deceased employee died on 23.8.2003. Immediately thereafter, the families of the petitioner, i.e., the sister of the petitioner, namely Vimla Yadav had applied on 10.9.2003, but no decision on her application was taken. Later on, the petitioner's sister moved an application asking the department to consider the case for employment to her brother i.e. the present petitioner. The said application also was undecided, which led to the filing of a writ petition in the year 2011 i.e. W.P.S. No. 1347/2011. The said writ petition stood disposed of on 11.3.2009 whereby the respondents were directed to consider and pass a suitable order in the case of the petitioner for grant of employment. The impugned order, Annexure P-1, has been passed pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11.3.2009 in the aforesaid writ petition. The impugned order is apparently a non-speaking order and that no reason or justification or explanation or ground has been mentioned as to why the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. In the absence of any reason or ground, this Court was compelled to take the grounds which the respondents have taken in their return. The ground as has been envisaged in the preceding paragraph was that, clause 20 of the revised instruction do not permit grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is compelled to reach to the conclusion that the provision of clause 20 of the revised instruction can be made applicable only in the event if at any point of time the offer of appointment was issued to the petitioner or to any other family member to the deceased employee. In the absence of any offer being made to the petitioner or to any other family members, the provision of clause 20 of the revised instruction as has been relied upon by the State Government could not have been applied and the impugned order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment is therefore per se illegal and is without justification or ground.

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to them.

The writ petition accordingly stand allowed.