Vinay Suryavanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.7.2015 (Annexure P-3) by which the petitioner's application for consideration and grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected / returned by respondent No.2 finding no merit.

The petitioner's father Shri Sidh Ram Suryavanshi while working as Headmaster in Government Primary School, Bhatapara, Naila died in harness on 24.6.2009. The petitioner made an application for compassionate application in prescribed form on 17.9.2009, but he was minor at that time.

Thereafter again on 4.7.2015 (Annexure P-2) he filed an application for compassionate appointment stating that at the time of death of his father on 24.6.2009 he was minor aged about 14 years and now he has become major and passed 12th examination. Therefore, he be considered and granted compassionate appointment. The District Education Officer, Janjgir-Champa/respondent No.2 herein returned / rejected the application stating inter alia that at the time of death of his father, the policy dated 10.6.2003 was applicable and in that policy, there was no provision for grant of compassionate appointment after the dependent of the Government servant becomes major and three years period is also prescribed for disposal of the said application, which has called in question by way of this writ petition.

Return has been filed by the respondents/State stating inter-alia that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and he made an application on 4.7.2015 after six years from the date of death of his father and according to the circular dated 10.6.2003, there is no provision for filing application for claiming appointment on compassionate ground after attaining the age of majority by dependent of the deceased Government servant and there is specific provision to decide the matter within three years as per Annexure R-1 and as such, the petitioner's application has rightly been rejected. It has also been stated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, which can be enforced at any point of time. The object is to assist the family to tide over the immediate financial crises after death of bread earner of the family. In this case, the petitioner's family has survived for last six years and crossed the financial hardship, as such, his application has rightly been rejected / returned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Mr.Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is contrary to law. He would refer to the policy dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure P-5) and also refer to Clause 15 of the said policy in which the procedure for grant of compassionate appointment has given. He would also refer to sub Clause (8) of Clause 15 of the policy dated 14.6.2013 in which the procedure for obtaining the application from widow etc. has been prescribed. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.537 of 2015 (Pushpendra Nath Sonesare v. State of Chhattisgarh and another), decided on 10.9.2018 to support his claim.

On the other hand, Mr.Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State, would submit that in the instant case the policy dated 10.6.2003 would be applicable and in that policy, there is no provision for consideration and grant of compassionate appointment after dependent attains the age of majority and further, outer limit of three years has been prescribed for deciding the application and furthermore, the petitioner himself has filed the application immediately after death of his father on 17.9.2009 when he was minor and therefore, he cannot take the benefit of the circular dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure P-5), which would be inapplicable and as such, the decision of this Court in Pushpendra Nath Sonesare (supra) would not be applicable and since the petitioner's family has survived for last more than 13 years now, therefore, his application has rightly been rejected / returned by the competent authority and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

Admittedly, the petitioner's father died in harness while working as Headmaster in Government Primary School, Bhatapara, Naila on 24.6.2009 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 17.9.2009, but at that time, he was undisputedly minor, which is also apparent from his subsequent application dated 4.7.2015 (Annexure P-2) in which he has clearly admitted that he was minor at the time of death of his father, therefore, he was not considered and appointed at that time and application moved by the petitioner subsequently has been rejected on the ground that as per policy dated 10.6.2003 he is not eligible for compassionate appointment.

At the time of death of the petitioner's father, the policy dated 10.6.2003 (Annexure R-1) was applicable. In the said policy, there was no provision for considering the application for compassionate appointment by the dependent after he attains the age of majority if he was minor at the time of death of Government servant.Admittedly, the policy dated 10.6.2003 was applicable at the time of death of the petitioner's father and therefore, his application has rightly been rejected by the competent authority and furthermore that the petitioner made an application on 4.7.2015 when he became major and survived for last six years from the date of death of his father and since he has already survived and crossed the financial crises and come out from the financial hardship for last six years, the application for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected by respondent No.2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pushpendra Nath Sonesare (supra), in which this Court held as under:​

“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 Department.”

The argument raised by the learned counsel for the partitioner on the basis of aforesaid judgment of this Court is not available to the petitioner for more than one reason, firstly, the petitioner himself has filed an application claiming compassionate appointment on 17.9.2009 (Annexure P-1), but at that time he was minor, which he has reiterated in the application dated 4.7.2015 (Annexure P-2) and as such, he was quite aware of the opportunity to be made for taking compassionate appointment and secondly, the policy dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure P-5) was not applicable and the policy dated 10.6.2003 (Annexure R-1) was applicable to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit from the judgment of this Court in Pushpendra Nath Sonesare (supra). Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 rejecting / returning the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is strictly in accordance with law. I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).