Vikram Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

S.K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.7.2008 (Annexure P/6), whereby the Chief Conservator of forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, intimated the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, Raipur, that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of compassionate appointment after a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased father; and the order dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure P/10), whereby the representation of the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 17.1.2008 (Annexure P/8), passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 6356/2008, has been rejected on the same ground. Relevant facts in brief, as projected, are that the father of the petitioner namely late Shankar Pratap Singh, working as Forest Guard, died in harness on 15.11.2002. The Petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 7.1.2003 (Annexure P/1). The mother of the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P/2) that the petitioner was not major as he would complete 18 years after a period of 3 years and 6 months, therefore, the application may be made subsequently. The conservator of Forest, Surguja Circle, Ambikapur vide communication dated 4.1.2007 (Annexure P/3) informed to the Divisional Forest Officer, Koria Forest Division, Baikunthpur that the petitioner has not completed 18 years, therefore, it is recommended by the Circle Level Committee, to keep the case pending. Again on 5.1.2008 (Annexure P/4) the Divisional Forest Officer, Koria Forest Division, Baikunthpur wrote to the Conservator of Forest, Surguja Circle, Ambikapur that since the petitioner has completed 18 years on 10.7.2007, the case of the petitioner should be considered sympathetically for grant of compassionate appointment.

After consideration, the chief conservator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted) sent the impugned communication on 11.7.2008 (Annexure P/6) to the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, Raipur that the case of the petitioner could not be considered on the ground that three years period, from the date of death of the employee, has been over and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to grant of compassionate appointment.

It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition, being W.P.(s) No. 6356/2008 seeking a direction to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2008 disposed of the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No. 2 raising all his grievances. It was further directed that the respondent No. 2 would consider the representation on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

The respondent No. 2, Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted), relying on the amended circular dated 23.7.2003, came to the conclusion that the case for grant of compassionate appointment should have been considered within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and as such after completion of 3 years period from the date of death of late Shri Shankar Pratap Singh on 15.12.2002, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment.

Shri M.K. Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.7.1989. The petitioner has made an application within three years period, as such the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered after he attained the age of majority on 10.7.2007. It was further contended that the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment should be considered on the basis of the existing rules and policy, at the time of death of his father. The respondent No. 2 has considered even the old claims after 1.12.1997. Thus, the rejection of the petitioner''s representation was improper and unjust.

Per contra, Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General would submit that the compassionate appointment is not an appointment in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. It has been held as a back door entry in a catena of decisions. The circular dated 10.6.2003 and the amended circular dated 23.7.2003 clearly provides that the case of dependents of the deceased employee, dying in harness, should be considered and granted within a period of three years, not thereafter. Putting a 3 years cap is in accordance with the object and policy of compassionate appointment. Thus, the impugned letter dated 31.1.2009 is just, proper and in accordance with law.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the partied and having perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that the late Shri Shankar Pratap Singh, father of the petitioner, died in harness on 15.11.2002.

By circular dated 2.2.2006 all the cases of three years prior to creation of state of Chhattisgarh on 1.11.2000, wherein the employees died in harness after 1.11.1997, were considered, provided, the application was made within a period of six months. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that in some cases even old cases have been considered is not relevant to the facts of the present case, as the father of the petitioner died on 15.11.2002 in harness. Circular dated 23.7.2003 (Annexure - R/1), which is a part of compassionate appointment policy, clearly provided that the maximum period for grant of compassionate appointment would be three years from the date of death of the deceased. The circular dated 23.7.2003 read as under:

In the present case, through the application was made within a period of three years, but no decision was taken, as the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years within the three years period. Thus, no appointment could have been made on compassionate basis, as the object of compassionate appointment is to grant a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crises and is not to provide employment.

In Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh, the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment scheme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member".

The Supreme Court is State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, , in para 11 has held as under:

11......it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally; an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and complete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the bread winner, family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In the identical situation wherein the appointment could not be granted on account of the fact the petitioner was minor though the application was made by him within the period of three years, the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, , observed as under:

We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education V. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that family gets immediate relief

Applying the well settled principle of law on the compassionate appointment to the facts of the case, wherein the father of the petitioner died on 15.11.2002 and thereafter, more than seven years have passed and as such requirement of the grant of immediate relief and rehabilitation to the family in distress on account of death of the deceased employee does not survive. The purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is not to provide an employment but to see that the family in distress gets immediate relief. Thus, the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of immediate relief after a period of seven years.

For the reasons stated here in above, I am of the considered view that there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure - P/10). The same is just & proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs.