Chattisgarh High Court
Deepak Kumar Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 September, 2024
1/4
2024:CGHC:37615
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1932 of 2016
Deepak Kumar Verma S/o Late Narayan Prasad Verma, Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village And Post Janji, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Through The Department Of Home
(Police), Commercial Tax (Excise), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur,
Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2.The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of General
Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Tahsil And District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3.The Under Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Home
(Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4. The Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Digitally
5.The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Chhattisgarh, New
signed by
GOURI
GOURI MUDALIAR
MUDALIAR Date:
2024.09.26
16:12:27 Raipur, Chhattisgarh
+0530
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Shivank Mishra, Advocate.
For : Shri Devesh Kela, PL.
Respondents/State
2/4
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order on Board
24/09/2024
Heard.
1. Case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner namely; Narayan Prasad Verma died on 16/02/2015. Thereafter, immediately the wife of the deceased employee filed an application on 25/03/2015 on the ground that her son be given compassionate appointment in lieu of death of her husband, who resides with her. The said application for compassionate appointment was dismissed simplicitor only on the ground that two sons of the deceased are already in job, therefore the same cannot be considered and as per clause 13(1) of the policy dated 14/06/2013 only those person who died in a naxal combat would be considered for compassionate appointment, even if the other family members are in job.
2. Submission of the petitioner is that the rejection on the ground that the other family members are in job was not inclusive in the policy while the death occurred and on 25/03/2015 when the application was made, no such policy was in force. He placed his reliance in case of State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. vs. Ashish Awasthi reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission and submits that in case two of the sons of the deceased are already in job, the third person cannot be considered for compassionate appointment, as it is a deviation from the normal rule.
4. Be that as it may, as on date, the records which are placed before this court shows that the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment was only on the ground that two of the sons of the deceased are already in government job. Reliance is placed on Annexure R-1. The relevant part of it is reproduced hereunder:-
"इस विभाग के संदर्भित परिपत्र दिनांक 14.06.2013 द्वारा सेवाकाल के दौरान दिवंगत 3/4 शासकीय सेवक के आश्रित परिवार के सदस्य को अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति देने के संबंध में एकजाई पुनरीक्षित निर्देश, 2013 जारी किए गए हैं एवं उन निर्देशों में संदर्भित परिपत्र दिनांक 22.03.2016 एवं दिनांक 30.04.2016 द्वारा आं शिक संशोधन किए गए हैं। 2/ राज्य शासन एतद्वारा इस विभाग के संदर्भित परिपत्र कमांक एफ 7-1/2012/1-3, दिनाक 14.06.2013 में निम्नानुसार और संशोधन करता है :-
(1) निर्देश कमांक 6 में निम्नांकित पंक्तियाँ और जोड़ी जाती है:一 "परन्तु मृतक शासकीय सेवक के परिवार में यदि पूर्व से ही परिवार का कोई अन्य सदस्य शासकीय सेवा में है, तो परिवार के अन्य किसी भी सदस्य को अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति की पात्रता नहीं होगी।"
(2) निर्देश कमांक 6 के पश्चात् नया बिन्द ु 6 (अ) निम्नानुसार जोड़ा जाता है:-
"6 (अ) दिवंगत विवाहित शासकीय सेवक के परिवार में यदि पूर्व से ही परिवार का कोई अन्य सदस्य शासकीय सेवा में हैं, तो परिवार के अन्य किसी भी सदस्य को अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति की पात्रता नहीं होगी।"
5. Perusal of it would show that the amendment was carried out by a notification dated 22/03/2016 and 30/04/2016. At the time of the death and the application when was made for compassionate appointment, the policy was not in existence.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ashish Awasthi (supra) has categorically laid down that for the appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of deceased was required to be considered and not subsequent policy. Para 6 of the judgment is relevant and quoted hereinbelow :
"6. In Indian Bank v. Promila (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas 4/4 (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in Amit Shrivas, the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside."
7. Following the aforesaid principles, without any observation on the merits, Annexure P-1 dated 6/01/2016 is set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner according to their policy which was existing on the date of application dated 25/03/2015. It is further made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case. The said application shall be decided within a further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
8. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge gouri