Naveen Joseph vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been informed that no appointment can be granted to him on compassionate ground as the policy dated 14.06.2023 would be applicable from the date of its issuance.

Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner's mother Smt. Sunita Joseph was working as A.N.M., Primary Health Centre, Belragaon, Nagri, District-Dhamtari, who died on 21.03.2002. Immediately after the death of Smt. Sunita Joseph, the father of the petitioner made an application before the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Dhamtari (respondent No.3), for providing compassionate appointment to his elder son namely Sourabh Joseph after attaining the majority. The petitioner was minor boy of 10 years of age at the time of death of his mother. After completing his education, the petitioner made an application before the respondent authorities to get a compassionate appointment in place of his late mother. After attaining the majority, the petitioner sworn an affidavit before the Notary, in which, it is mentioned that, he is applying for compassionate appointment in place of his late mother Smt. Sunita Joseph. He also further stated in the affidavit that, if the compassionate appointment would be granted to him, he will take care of his brothers. Along with the said affidavit, the brothers of the petitioner namely Sourabh Joseph and Shubham Joseph have given consent for providing the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. In the said consent letter, they have specifically stated that, they have no objection if the compassionate appointment be provided to the petitioner.

After receiving letter from the petitioner and finding the substance in the case for compassionate appointment, the Chief Medical and Health Officer wrote a letter to the Deputy Collector, in which, it is mentioned that since the application for compassionate appointment was not filed within 6 months as per the circular dated 02.02.2006, therefore it is not possible to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Immediately after receiving the said letter, on 06.08.2012, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, in which, it is specifically mentioned that immediately after the death of his mother, his father wrote a letter to the then Chief Medical and Health Officer for providing compassionate appointment to his elder son after attaining majority. In response to the letter dated 06.08.2012, the Chief Medical and Health Officer wrote a letter to the Deputy Director for seeking guidance on the application of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment. When the respondent authorities have not given any heed on the request of petitioner, he filed another representation before the Public Grievance Cell of Directorate Health Services, for providing compassionate appointment. In response to his letter, on 26.06.2013, the Administrative Officer (Public Grievance) wrote a letter to the respondent no.3, in which, he has specifically directed to take necessary action on the application of the petitioner.

On 22.03.2014, the Chief Medical and Health Officer (respondent no. 3) has written a letter to Deputy Collector (Complaint Cell), in which, it is mentioned that, the petitioner has filed the application for seeking compassionate appointment on 14.09.2012, which is 10 years after the death of his mother, whereas according to the government policy, the application for seeking compassionate appointment should be filed within 6 months from the date of death of deceased employee. They have sought guidelines from the higher authorities and after receiving the guidelines, they will proceed further. On 22.04.2014, the Chief Medical and Health Officer (respondent no. 3) again written a letter to Deputy Collector, in which, it is mentioned that, since the petitioner has not filed the application within time, therefore he sought the guidelines from the higher authorities, which is awaited and no action can be taken on the application of petitioner at District level. When the respondent authorities have not taken any action on the applications filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, the petitioner sent another representation to the Director, Health Services (respondent no. 2). After receiving the representation, the Joint Director Health Services, has written a letter to the Chief Medical and Health Officer (respondent no. 3).

Being aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondent authorities in not providing compassionate appointment, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No. 1119 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Court. Vide order dated 31.03.2015, the Hon'ble Court disposed off the petition with a direction to the State authorities to take the decision on the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment at the earliest, preferable within a period of 3 months from the date of order. After passing of the order of Hon'ble Court several correspondences were made between the authorities. The respondent no. 3 vide impugned letter dated 26.11.2015 informed to the petitioner that the policy dated 14.06.2013 would be applicable from the date of its issuance, therefore in such circumstances, in the old matters, without proper sanction from the State Government, it is not possible to grant compassionate appointment. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable, unwarranted, illegal, unjust, discriminatory and violative to the principles of natural justice, therefore, hit by the postulates of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. While deciding the representation of the petitioner as per direction of this Court, the respondent No.3 without appreciating the fact that the policy dated 14.06.2013 would not be applicable in the case of petitioner, rejected the claim of the petitioner.

From perusal of the policy dated 14.06.2013, it is clear that nowhere it is mentioned that the old matters regarding compassionate appointment would not be considered by the State Government for grant of compassionate appointment, the respondent No.3 without any cogent reason has held that in the old matters the permission or sanction is necessary for considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. As a matter of fact the policy dated 02.02.2006 would squarely cover the case of the petitioner and is entitled for the same. As per clause (3) of circular dated 02.02.2006, the petitioner’s father made an application within 6 months from the date of death of mother of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the compassionate appointment immediately after attaining the age of majority, therefore this petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P/1) should be set-aside. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 425/2021 (Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank and others v. Khitesh Kumar Minj), decided on 24.02.2022.

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner’s mother Smt. Sunita Joseph was working as A.N.M. in Primary Health Centre, Belragaon, Nagri, District Dhamtari and died on 21.03.2002. Immediately, after death of her mother, the father of petitioner made an application before the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Dhamtari. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment before the authorities, the same was dismissed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Dhamtari vide order dated 30.07.2012 (Annexure P/5) on the ground that the application should have been preferred within six months and there is no provision for condonation of delay in preferring the application for compassionate appointment, thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition i.e. WPS No. 1119/2015 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 31.03.2015. On complying the order of this Court, the respondent authorities duly considered the application and rejected the same by impugned order dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P/1).

It is well settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment can only be granted in accordance with the policy. In the policy, there is no provision for giving appointment to the minor children of the deceased employee and in the prevailing policy, the maximum period for submitting the application form was six months, whereas the petitioner had filed the application for compassionate appointment after 10 years from the date of death of her mother, therefore the petitioner’s application has rightly been rejected, as the petitioner is not at all entitled for compassionate appointment in accordance with the compassionate policy. This petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 668/2022 (Gendram Baghel v. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & others), decided on 18.04.2023.

I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on the record.

It is not disputed that the mother of the petitioner was died on 21.03.2002 and the petitioner’s application was dismissed on the ground of delay.

This Court while passing the order dated 31.03.2015 in WPS No. 1119/2015 (Naveen Joseph v. State of Chhattisgarh & others) observed as under:

“4. Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that in light of the Annexure P/11 and P/12 the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents authorities to take decision on the claim of the petitioner as early as possible.

On the aforesaid submission made by the State counsel the instant writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the State authorities to take decision on the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment at the earliest keeping in view the letter issued by the State Government on 07.06.2014 and 22.08.2014. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. The respondents are at liberty to decide the claim of the petitioner purely and strictly in accordance to the scheme framed in this regard.”

In compliance of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 1119/2015, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P/1). Relevant portion of the order is quoted for the facility of this Court hereinunder:

The Division Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 24.02.2022 in WA No. 425/2021 (Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank & others v. Khitesh Kumar Minj) held as under:

“8. Mr. P.R.Patankar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Scheme for payment of ex-gratia (lump sump) amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground in the Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank came into effect on 23.03.2007, and prior to that, at the time of death of the mother of petitioner, the Scheme for compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee in the organization, dated 09.07.1991, was applicable. He submits that the direction by the learned Single Judge to release ex-gratia payment is not correct in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi, reported in AIROnline 2021 SC 1047, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of an employee is only to be considered. He submits that the appellant-Bank is willing to offer compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner.”

The Division Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 18.04.2023 in WA No. 668/2022 observed as under:

“6. A careful perusal of the policy dated 18.05.2007, which has been quoted in paragraph-5 of the order impugned, would show that the said policy which has been made applicable from 18.05.2007 would also be applicable in pending applications for compassionate appointment from the date of coming into force of that policy, and accordingly, the appellant’s/writ petitioner’s case has been considered in accordance with amended policy and he has been held entitled for only ex-gratia lump- sum amount. In case of N.C. Santosh (supra) their Lordships have clearly held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment and held as under :-

“19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from  the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in  the  absence  of  any  vested  right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.”

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the orders passed by this Court as also the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P/1), this Court is not inclined to interfere the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities. This writ petition, being devoid of merit, liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.