[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Parmeshwar Jagat vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution … on 4 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed 2025:CGHC:30546
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
Date: 2025.07.09 NAFR
14:54:40 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5395 of 2018
1 - Parmeshwar Jagat S/o Late Shri Bhopalrao Jagat Aged About 36 Years
R/o Village Rawabhata, Adarsh Nagar Ward No. 3, (Oriyapara) Mahasamund,
District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through The
Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Deputy
General Manager (H.R.D.), Electricity Service Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
04/07/2025
Heard.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to call the
record of the petitioner.
10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to issue
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to
consider the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-16 with
other relevant inter office communication and to pass appropriate
order of compassionate appointment in the interest of justice.
2
10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to pass any
appropriate writ, order or directin to the respondents in the
circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner,
namely late Bhopal Rao Jagat was working in the post of Assistant
Engineer under the respondents, who died on 17.12.1996 as he
sustained injuries. The mother of the petitioner moved an application
dated 30.05.1997 for the grant of compassionate appointment
because, on the date of the death of Late Bhopal Rao Jagat, her son
was aged about 16 years. A reminder application was sent by the
petitioner on 24.09.1997. After attaining the majority, the petitioner
moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment on
20.04.2000. When no decision was taken, WPS No. 2118/2015 was
filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.06.2015, wherein a
direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner according to the Policy/Circular dated 30.01.1997. The claim
of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 01.03.2016 on the
ground that the application for the grant of compassionate appointment
was not moved within the prescribed limitation of one year according to
the Policy dated 30.01.1997.
3. Mr. J.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
argue that the first application was moved by the mother of the
petitioner on behalf of the petitioner on 30.05.1997 after 06 months
from the date of the death of his father. He would further contend that a
reminder application was sent on 24.09.1997, thus, the findings
recorded by the respondent authorities are incorrect. He would further
contend that the petitioner again moved a fresh application on
3
20.04.2000 after attaining the majority and when that application was
not considered, he filed a writ petition and pursuant to a direction
issued by the High Court, his application was considered and rejected
on 01.03.2016. He would also submit that the petitioner is eligible and
qualified to be appointed against any vacant and sanctioned post under
the respondents. He would pray that the order dated 01.03.2016 may
be quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioner afresh.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhshek Sinha, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by
Mr. J.K. Gupta. Mr. Abhishek Sinha would submit that the father of the
petitioner died on 17.12.1996, but the petitioner has not arrayed the
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short ‘MPEB’) as a party
respondent as in the year 1996, the father of the petitioner was an
employee of MPEB. He would further contend that initially, an
application was moved by the mother of the petitioner on his behalf, but
the fresh application was moved by the petitioner claiming therein
compassionate appointment after 04 years on 20.04.2000, particularly
after attaining the majority. He would further contend that in the
Policy/Circular dated 30.01.1997, it is provided that the application for
compassionate appointment must be moved within a period of 01 year
from the date of the death of the employee. He would also contend that
the application was moved after 04 years, therefore, it has been
rejected by the respondent authorities. He would further argue that the
petitioner has not challenged the order dated 01.03.2016 whereby his
application was rejected. He would also argue that the father of the
petitioner was working in the post of Assistant Engineer, therefore, the
4
petitioner was financially secure. It is also contended that the petitioner
has survived for more than 30 years therefore the grant of
compassionate appointment would be contrary to the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that in the matter of Amit
Rao vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. And
others in WPS No. 363/2015 and other connected matters dated
06.05.2015, the writ petitions were disposed of in the light of order
passed in the matter of Raja Ram Kosle. He would further contend
that the coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Raja Ram
Kosle vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. &
others decided on 08.04.2015 in WPS No. 360/2015, had issued a
direction to the respondents to consider the application of the
dependent in light of the earlier judgments passed in similar matters
including the order passed by the Division Bench in WA No. 588/2013
dated 10.11.2014, parties being Tamradhwaj Verma Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors. wherein it was held that the claim for
compassionate appointment must be made by the eligible candidate
within one year of the death and if the period of one year has expired
during the minority of the candidate, it cannot be construed that the
post was to be kept reserved for him to enable him to apply and be
considered after he attains the majority. He would submit that the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant
Engineer, died on 17.12.1996. An application was moved by the
petitioner on 20.04.2000. The petitioner filed WPS No. 2118/2015
5
seeking direction to decide his application and the following direction
was issued:-
“Accordingly, the present writ petition is
disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court
in Amit Rao (supra).”
7. The respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner on the
ground that it was moved at a belated stage. The Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court in the matter of Tamradhwaj Verma (supra) has
categorically held that the claim for compassionate appointment must
be made by the eligible candidate within one year of the death
according to the Circular dated 30.01.1997 and if the period of one
year expired during the minority of such a candidate, it cannot be
construed that the post was to be kept reserved for him on the basis of
descent to enable him to apply and be considered after he attains the
majority. Relevant Para-7 is reproduced herein below:-
“7. The Circular dated 30.01.1997 provided that the
claim for compassionate appointment must be made
by the eligible within one year of death. If this period
of one year expired during the minority of the
appellant because of which he was unable to apply, It
cannot be construed that the post was to be kept
reserved for him on basis of descent to enable him to
apply and be considered after he attains majority. The
right to apply lost its efficacy after one year from the
date of death and the appellant being a minor unable
to apply was an irrelevant consideration for the
purpose. It is not the case of the appellant that the
Rules provided for an application to be submitted
within a prescribed time after attaining majority.”
6
8. In the present case, the father of the petitioner was an employee of the
MPEB, but MPEB has not been arrayed as a party respondent. The
object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial
assistance to the bereaved family and after a lapse of 30 years, I don’t
feel such an appointment would serve the object of compassionate
appointment. Further, it appears that the petitioner has not challenged
the order dated 01.03.2016, whereby his claim was rejected by
respondent No.1, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.
9. It is well settled principles of law that if a dependent has survived by for
considerable period, there is no need to provide him compassionate
appointment as compassionate appointment is back door entry and it is
in contravention to the constitutional mandate. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court while dealing this issue compassionate appointment in the matter
of State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti
Vidhate, AIR Online 2022 SC 471 has held in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8
as under:-
“7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment
is an exception to the general rule of appointment in
the public services and is in favour of the dependents
of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family
in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in
such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family would not
be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made
in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of
the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible
for such employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not
to give such family a post much less a post held by
the deceased.
7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case
on hand, to appoint the respondent now on
7compassionate ground shall be contrary to the
object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate ground. The respondent cannot
be said to be dependent on the deceased
employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she
shall not be entitled to appointment on
compassionate ground after a number of years
from the death of the deceased employee.
8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and
circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the
Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed
serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the
respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment
and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the
High Court directing the appellants to consider the
case of the respondent for appointment on
compassionate ground after a number of years is
unsustainable.”
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and Other Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774,
held in paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under:-
“:7. In our view there is more than one impediment
in the way of the respondent.
8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts
for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is
making representations. The very objective of
providing immediate amelioration to the family is
extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy
having been abolished and the new policy having
coming into force, the application has been
considered under the new policy and the options
available were offered to the respondent who failed to
avail of the same.
9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant
clause of the new policy which reads as under:-
“The above policy instructions shall be applicable
from the date of issue of instructions. The cases,
where compassionate employment has not been
given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy
since 4/2002, shall also be considered and requisite
relief, in lieu compassionate employment, shall be
granted as per above policy instructions.”
8
11. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to
interfere. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed at
the admission stage itself.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
[ad_2]
Source link