Dineshwar Poya vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.01.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereunder, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on death of his father namely Shri Krishna Kumar, working as Assistant Teacher, who died in harness, has been rejected.

Shri Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application on 14.09.2007 within a period of three years from the death of the deceased employee on 08.11.2004. Shri Prajapati, further submits that in the circular dated 02.02.2006 (Annexure R-2), there is no mention with regard to application or rules for the dependant who is minor at the time of death of the deceased employee, thus, the earlier circular would be applicable.

In circular dated 01.05.2000 (Annexure P-8), in clause 4, it has been mentioned that if there is no adult member in the family, a minor who attains majority within three years can also make an application for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of three years. Thereafter, the circular dated 10.06.2003 (Annexure R-1) was issued, whereunder, the clause in respect of minor was deleted; however, the time remained the same. Subsequently, by circular dated 02.02.2006, the time for making application on the deceased employee was reduced to a period of six months from the death of the deceased employee. Thereafter, it is provided that the application shall not be considered. Shri Prajapati, further submits that recently by circular dated 07.03.2011 (Annexure P-7), the period has again been extended to three years.

Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned State counsel submits that it is well settled principles of law that no compassionate appointment can be made de hors the policy of the State Government, as in earlier policy dated 01.05.2000, which was issued by the then State of Madhya Pradesh, there was a provision for considering the case of minor, if he attains majority within a period of three years. However, in the subsequent circulars dated 10.06.2003 and 02.02.2006, there is no reference and provision for minors at the time of death of the deceased employee for extended period or any other period more than six months for preferring the application. In this case, indisputably, the petitioner has made application after a period of six months, thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is indisputable that the petitioner''s father namely Krishna Kumar, working as Assistant Teacher, died on 08.11.2004 in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner has made application on 14.09.2007, after a period of six months after attaining the age of majority.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, applications were made earlier also, though the petitioner was not eligible for appointment. However, no appointment can be granted, which is de hors the appointment policy of the State Government.

The principle of law on the compassionate appointment is well settled. The compassionate appointment is granted only in the event, if an employee dies in harness and on account of sudden death, the dependent family has become penurious on sudden demise of the bread earner of the family. The compassionate appointment itself is a backdoor entry. It is a departure from the general rule of employment, as provided under the provisions of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate basis is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment but in order to subserve the above stated purpose, this provision has been made under the Rules framed by the State Government (See: State of J&K Others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, National Institute of Technology & Others v. Niraj Kumar Singh, Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh).

Recently, the Supreme Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India & Others, has laid down the guidelines while considering a claim for employment on compassionate basis, as under :

Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind :

(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.

(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.

(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crises occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee''s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.

(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, wherein, the petitioner has applied for grant of compassionate appointment against the compassionate policy of the Government, in which, it is clearly prescribed that any application made after a period of six months from the date of the deceased employee, shall not be entertained. Thus, no direction can be issued to the respondents.

In view of foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.