Chattisgarh High Court
Sudhir Kumar Kaushik And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 27 January, 2023
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order reserved on : 10/11/2022
Order passed on : 27/01/2023
WPS No. 625 of 2013
1. Sudhir Kumar Kaushik S/o Late Vijai Kumar Kaushik Aged About
27 Years R/o Village Ghutku, PS Takhatpur, PS Sarkanda, Distt
Bilaspur, CG,
2. Smt. Somunda Bai Wd/o Late Vijai Kumar Kaushik, aged about
48 years, R/o Village Ghutku, PS Takhatpur, PS Sarkanda, Distt
Bilaspur, CG
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department
(Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (CG)
2. Superintendent Of Police Distt Janjgir Champa (CG)
3. Smt. Kanti Bai Wd/o Late Vijai Kumar Kaushik, aged about 47
years,
4. Vikas Kumar S/o Late Vijai Kumar Kaushik, aged about 29
years,
5. Vinod Kumar S/o Late Vijai Kumar Kaushik, aged about 26
years,
6. Vishal Kumar S/o Late Vijai Kumar Kaushik, aged about 24
years,
No. 3 to 6 R/o Ward No. 20, Khokhara Road, Near Canal,
Janjgir, PS Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG)
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Ankur Kashyap, P.L. For Respondent No.3 to 6 : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Order By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of 2 India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.3.2012 whereby the application of petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner No.1 in the police department has been rejected by respondent No.2/Superintendent of Police, Janjgir- Champa.
02. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 is the son of deceased Vijai Kumar Kaushik who was employed in police department and at the relevant time was posted in the office of respondent No.2 and expired in a motor accident on 2.2.2012 at the age of 52 years. After his death, petitioner No.2, widow of the deceased employee, applied for compassionate appointment of her son i.e. petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2/SP, Janjgir-Champa on 13.2.2012 and also prayed for obtaining the service fund etc but vide impugned order dated 14.3.2012 her claim was dismissed on the ground that service record of the deceased employee nowhere contains their names as wife and son. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:
"1. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondent No.1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner No.1 in police department on compassionate grounds.
2. That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to quash the impugned order (Annexure P-1) by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari.
3. That, any other writ, directions or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."3
03. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of police dated 7.3.2011 of Annexure P/9, petitioner No.1 deserves to be employed on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father. The petitioners are facing acute hardship since the death of the deceased employee as the maintenance amount has been stopped and respondent No.2 has denied to release the service fund and pension in favour of petitioner No.2. The petitioners are now totally dependent upon Shri Ramnath Kaushik who is Mama (maternal uncle) of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 is well qualified and aged about 27 years and as such, competent to carry out the job assigned to him with utmost sincerity. The respondents have denied the claim of the petitioners only on the ground that their names are not mentioned in the service records of the deceased employee whereas it is undisputed that petitioner No.1 is son and petitioner No.2 is wife of the deceased employee.
Reliance has been place on the order passed by this Court in the matter of Supram Prasad Vs. State of CG and another reported in 2012 (4) CGLJ 137 (DB) and in the matter of Smt. Samunda Bai and another Vs. General Public and others reported in 2019(3) CGLJ
270.
04. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2/State submits that as per records of the department, names of the petitioners are not mentioned as nominees of the deceased Vijai Kumar Kaushik, therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they are the son and first wife of the deceased employee is not within the official 4 knowledge of the respondent department and on this ground, the application for grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner No.1 has been rejected by respondent No.2/SP, Janjgir-Champa vide order dated 14.3.2012 (Annexure P/1). The impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law as there is no entry in the government records regarding the petitioners being the nominees of the deceased employee namely Vijai Kumar Kaushik. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in passing the order impugned. Thus, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
05. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6 submits that the respondents No. 3 to 6 are legal heirs of the deceased employee and their names are mentioned in the service record of the deceased employee. The legal presumption of legitimacy is restricted only to the property of the deceased and not to the other things and respondents No. 3 to 6 being legal heirs of the deceased employee, are entitled for compassionate appointment. So, this petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another Vs. V.R. Tripathi reported in (2019) 14 SCC 646.
06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
07. The petitioners have filed the order dated 15.4.2019 in Civil Revision No.145/2016 whereby this Court held that petitioner No.2 Smt. Samunda Bai is the legally wedded wife of Vijai Kumar Kaushik. 5 Para 25 of the said order reads as under:
"25. Consequently, the revision is allowed and impugned order relating to the issuance of succession certificate in relation to pension, exgratia payment and police welfare payment cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside, it is accordingly set set-aside and the petitioners will be entitled for succession certificate with regard to pension, ex- gratia and police welfare payment. However, respondent No.4 would be entitled to get the amount under heads of Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance Scheme and Family Benefit Fund as per the Will/nomination. No order as to cost(s)."
Thus, by the aforesaid order, this Court also held respondent No.4 therein namely Vinod Kumar entitled to get the amount under the heads of Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance Scheme and Family Benefit Fund as per the Will/nomination.
08. This Court in the matter of Supram Prasad (supra) observed that only major son applied for giving compassionate appointment and family of the deceased was facing financial hardship, so he was held entitled for compassionate appointment. However, in the present petition, petitioner No.2 widow of the deceased employee is getting pension of the deceased employee by the order of this Court and respondent No.4 to 6 are also sons of the deceased employee. It is not clear from the reply of the respondents whether they applied for compassionate appointment or not.
09. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to verify the claim of the petitioners 6 and other children of the deceased employee, if they had applied for compassionate appointment, and thereafter, give a suitable appointment in compassionate quota of the State in the State services within six months from the date of passing of this order after making necessary verification in this regard.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan