Chattisgarh High Court
A. Neelkaant Naidu vs Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh on 1 May, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 12
2025:CGHC:19789
NAFR
Reserved On : 06.02.2025
Pronounced On : 01.05.2025
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4738 of 2022
1 - A. Neelkaant Naidu S/o Late Shri A. Ganesh Naidu Aged About 21
Years R/o Near Uslapur Bridge, Back Side Of Mausaji White House,
House, Anand Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar General,
Chhattisgarh High Court, Bodri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Additional Registrar Chhattisgarh High Court Bodri Bilaspur
District Bilaspur Chhattigarh.
3 - Richa Naidu D/o A. Ganesh Naidu, Aged About 24 Years R/o House
No. 400, Ganesh Nag, Sai Vihar Collony, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
-Respondents
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. A. Sandhya
Rao, Advocate
For R1 and R2 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate
________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing Memo dated 26.05.2022
(Annexure P/2) by which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of
Page 2 of 12
compassionate appointment dated 09.02.2022 has been rejected.
2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that father of the petitioner
was working as Peon in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur District
Bilaspur (CG) and died in harness on 16/06/2010. The petitioner
submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on
09.02.2022. The said application was rejected by the respondent
authorities vide memorandum dated 26/05/2022.
3. The High Court has filed their return and have contended that after
carefully considering the application the facts reveal to the respondents
are that the petitioner’s father in his nomination form dated 24.01.2002 has
mentioned name of his wife Pooja Naidu as first nominee and daughter
Richa Naidu as second nominee and in the list of family members he has
mentioned Smt. Pooja Naidu as wife, Ku. Geeta Naidu, Ku. Anjali Naidu,
Ku. Richa Naidu and A. Neelkant Naidu the petitioner and Nephew A.
Shreenu Naidu as family members. The wife of the deceased employee
Pooja Naidu after birth of her daughter Richa Naidu has undergone TT
operation and also had taken the benefit of two increments as evident from
the affidavit dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure R/2). At the time of death of
Ganesh Naidu, his wife Pooja Naidu was already working in the High
Court, therefore, there was no occasion to grant compassionate
appointment. Unfortunately, Pooja Naidu also expired during service in the
High Court. Therefore, the High Court has granted compassionate
appointment to Richa Naidu who was only dependent of the deceased
Pooja Naidu. She has already been removed by the High Court. Thus very
object of the compassionate appointment has already been exhausted.
Thereafter, after 11 years of the death of Ganesh Naidu the present
Page 3 of 12
petitioner has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment
claiming himself to be son and dependent upon the deceased employee
on 09.02.2022. The High Court committee has considered the entire facts
and it was revealed that the deceased has no where mentioned that the
petitioner to be his son in the latest nomination form. The wife of deceased
employee Pooja Naidu had also submitted an affidavit wherein she has
mentioned that from her wedlock with Ganesh Naidu only one female child
was born and rest of the children are of elder brother of the deceased
employee. Therefore, his application for grant of compassionate
appointment has been rejected. It has been further contended that on the
count of delay and latches the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is
further contended that the petitioner’s father expired on 16.06.2010 and
the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been filed after
12 years. For these long period of 12 years he survived, as such also the
object of grant of compassionate appointment to grant immediate relief to
the family members who have lost their sole bread-earner is achieved,
therefore, on this count also the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for taking
additional document on record whereby he has filed an affidavit of Usha
Murti who is sister-in-law of the deceased employee (Bhabhi, wife of
deceased late Narshih Murti elder brother of the deceased employee)
stating that the affidavit filed by Late Pooja Naidu is incorrect. She has
submitted that the petitioner is not her son. In fact, the deceased
employee/ father of the petitioner had two wives namely Reshma Naidu
first wife and Pooja Naidu second wife. The deceased had three children
including the petitioner from his first wife Reshma Naidu and only one child
Page 4 of 12
namely Richa Naidu was born from his second wife Late Pooja. As such,
deceased employee was father of all the children.
5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder contending that the compassionate
appointment granted to Richa Naidu has been withdrawn and she is not
claiming any appointment, even otherwise, second wife is a separate entity
and other daughters of the first wife of the deceased employee are not
claiming compassionate appointment, therefore, he may be granted
benefit of compassionate appointment.
6. Learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner would submit that vide circular
dated 14.06.2013, dependent son is entitled for compassionate
appointment, therefore, rejection of the compassionate appointment to the
petitioner is illegal and against the well settled principles of law. He would
further submit that after the death of his father, he is facing lot of financial
difficulties in taking care of his family which include his mother and his
sister and they have no other source of income. Therefore, he would pray
for grant of compassionate appointment and allowing the writ petition. To
substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of this Court in
Sagar Chand vs. State of Chhattisgarh {WPS NO. 3920/2021
dt. 29.07.2021} and Smt. Sarojni Bhoi vs. Staten of
Chhattisgarh {WPS No. 296/2014 dated 30.11.2015}.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would
submit that application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the
count that he has failed to establish that he is the son of the deceased
employee. The deceased employee has nominated his wife and his
daughter Richa Naidu as nominee. Only inclusion of petitioner’s name in
Page 5 of 12
the list of family does not entitle him for grant of compassionate
appointment. She would further submit that the nominee wife Pooja Naidu
who was also an employee of the Court had submitted an affidavit on
08.07.2014 stating that only Richa Naidu is their only daughter, rest of the
children in the family including the petitioner were children of elder brother
of her husband the deceased employee. The said affidavit has been made
part of the service record of the late Pooja Naidu. Richa Naudu has been
granted compassionate appointment on the demise of Late Pooja Naidu.
Therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the
petitioner which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
8. She would further submit that at the time of death of the deceased
employee his wife late Pooja Naidu was in service. As per Clause 6A of the
circular and in light of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court
in case of State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs. Umesh Thakur
{WA No. 236/2022 dated 21.06.2023}, if any other member of the
family is in Government service, then other family members are not eligible
for compassionate appointment. Further the claim for compassionate
appointment has been submitted after lapse of 11 years from the date of
death of the deceased employee, therefore, the claim of the petitioner
deserves to be rejected and does not call for any interference and would
pray for dismissing the writ petition.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with
utmost satisfaction.
10. From the submissions made by the parties the points emerged for
determination of this Court are :-
Page 6 of 12
A) Whether the High Court under its writ jurisdiction can declare petitioner
to be son of deceased employee for the purpose of grant of
compassionate appointment when disputed facts exist.
B) Whether after grant of compassionate appointment to one of the family
members the petitioner’s claim for grant of compassionate appointment
is sustainable ?
Discussion and finding on Point No. 1
11. The petitioner is the son of the deceased employee or not is being
considered by this Court. The record annexed with the writ petition and the
return would clearly demonstrate that the deceased employee in his
nomination form dated 03.12.2008, has submitted the list of family
members in which name of present petitioner was mentioned but in the
subsequent nomination forms in the month of July, 2009 and 17.08.2009
the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the list of family
members. Deceased Pooja Naidu wife of the deceased employee has
claimed benefits of T.T. operation therefore, the High Court has sought
clarification wherein Pooja Naidu clarified that she had only one daughter
from the deceased employee and rest of the children are of elder brother
of the deceased employee. Accordingly, after her death compassionate
appointment has been granted to the daughter Richa Naidu. Even, in the
clarification she has clearly stated that present petitioner is son of elder
brother of the deceased Ganesh Naidu which creates dispute about
genealogy of the petitioner. Since, disputed facts with regard to declaration
of the petitioner being son of A Ganesh Naidu have arisen which cannot be
adjudicated and declared by the High Court in writ jurisdiction, as such,
Page 7 of 12
remedy of civil law is available to the petitioner of filing civil suit for
declaration before the competent civil court. It is also well settled position
of law that once the disputed facts are involved normally the High Court
should not entertain the writ petition as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of M/s Radhkrishna Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
{2021 (6) SCC 771} which reads as under :-
26. Following the dictum of this Court in Whirlpool (supra), in
Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.22, this court noted
that “7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the
remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to
the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the
appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to
observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by
availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and
not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of
availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still
exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i)
where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of
natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
(See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8
SCC 1] .) The present case attracts applicability of the first two
contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the appellants’ dealership,
which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an
irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we
feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the
High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating
arbitration proceedings.” (emphasis supplied)
27. The principles of law which emerge are that :
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue
writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ
petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the
High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is
available to the aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a
fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b)
there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;
(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or
Page 8 of 12
(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High
Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an
appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not
be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is
provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or
liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy
before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of
the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory
remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the
High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ
petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view
that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its
writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered
with.
12. Since, a dispute has been created by the wife of the deceased employee
who herself was an employee of the High Court, regarding the paternity of
the petitioner which can be ascertained only after recording of evidence
and by the competent civil court, the writ petition on account of the
disputed facts is not maintainable before this Court. Accordingly, the point
No. 1 is answered against the petitioner.
Discussion and finding on Point No. 2
13. To decide this point it is expedient for this court to go through the object of
grant of compassionate appointment which is subject matter of
deliberation and discussion in catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and Various High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Canara Bank vs. Ajit Kumar {2025 INSC 184} has considered the aims
and object of the compassionate appointment and has held that under
which contingencies and circumstances the claim of compassionate
appointment can be considered. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
Page 9 of 12
under:-
11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate
ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled
principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They
are (not in sequential but contextual order):
a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on
humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in
the matter of public employment
b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the
absence of rules or instructions
c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two
contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule,
viz. to (2008) 8 SCC 475 (2002) 10 SCC 246 meet the
sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death
or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service
d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment
by an employer being intended to enable the family members
of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the
sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate
ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in
distress
e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a
side- door entry, the same have to be given strict
interpretation
f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right
and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all
aspirants
g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of
inheritance
h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our
constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme
has to (2008) 13 SCC 730 (1989) 4 SCC 468 (2009) 11 SCC
453 (2008) 15 SCC 560 (2009) 13 SCC 600 be strictly
construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to
achieve
i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the
occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned
employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a
vested right, and any appointment without considering the
financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally
impermissible
Page 10 of 12
j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be
made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case
within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption
could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated
employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance.
Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply
cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be
offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over
k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a
member of a family of the deceased employee a post much
less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering
compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective
of the financial condition of the (2011) 4 SCC 209 (2021) 20
SCC 695 (2009) 13 SCC 112 family of the deceased and
making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III
and IV is legally impermissible
l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is
the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of
compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and
the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from
financial destitution is taken away from compassionate
appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of
the dependents of the employee who died while in service
which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide
for endless compassion
n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing
financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate
ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not
enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for
such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T.
Tiwari27]. (1994) 4 SCC 138 (2011) 13 SCC 131 (2007) 6
SCC 162 (2012) 9 SCC 545 o) There cannot be reservation of
a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major
after a number of years, unless there are some specific
provisions.
p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits
cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment
assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if
provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and
not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date
of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment
upon attaining majority
q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many
years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or
Page 11 of 12
without due consideration of the financial resources available
to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee
would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution
r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered
s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased
employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if
the family of the (2000) 7 SCC 192 (2007) 2 SCC 481 (1998)
5 SCC 452 deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute
the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do”.
t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee,
allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the
object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in
such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee
dying-in- harness would claim employment as if public
employment is heritable
u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income
including the family pension and income of family from other
sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into
consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is
living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)].
v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee
under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment
cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment.
Family Benefit Scheme cannot be (2004) 7 SCC 271 (2012)
11 SCC 307 (2006) 7 SCC 350 (2004) 12 SCC 487 (2004) 7
SCC 265 equated with benefits of compassionate
appointment.
w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which
dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the
facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in
taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the
purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of
decision making.
x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic
consideration
y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors
the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the
candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such
regulations/instructions.
z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment
on compassionate ground contrary to its policy.
Page 12 of 12
14. Now coming to the facts of the case and in light of the above legal position,
it is quite vivid that deceased employee expired in 2010 and at that time
his wife already in government service, therefore, also in light of full Bench
decision of this Court in Umesh Thakur (supra) and para 6-A of the policy
as amended from time to time, the petitioner’s claim for grant of
compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Even otherwise, after
death of Pooja Naidu, the compassionate appointment has already been
granted to one of the family member i.e. Richa Naidu and she has been
subsequently removed from services for other reasons. As such, the
object of compassionate appointment has already been achieved by
granting appointment. As such, the rejection of subsequent application by
the petitioner by the High Court cannot be said to suffer from perversity,
illegality which warrants interference by this Court. The record of the case
would further demonstrate that the petitioner has moved an application
before the respondent for grant of compassionate appointment after 11
years of death of A. Ganesh Naidu. On this count alone the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed as delay and latches are one of the ground for
denying the claim of the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
15. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Deshmukh
Digitally
signed by
KISHORE
KISHORE KUMAR
KUMAR DESHMUKH
DESHMUKH Date:
2025.05.01
15:10:16
+0530
[ad_1]
Source link