Purendra Kumar Sinha S/o Late Chandrabhushan Sinha vs State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Tribal Department

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Chh) 376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arup Kumar Goswami, Parth Prateem Sahu, JJ.
Purendra Kumar Sinha S/o Late Chandrabhushan Sinha - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Tribal Department and ors. – Respondents
WPS No. 6689 of 2018, 2887 of 2017, 169, 197, 223, 270, 561, 592, 596, 652, 823, 920, 931, 1136, 1196, 1418 of 2022, WA No. 110 of 2020
Decided On : 06-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Mr. Ishan Verma and Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Mr. Hemant Kesharwani and Mr. Suresh Tandon, Mr. Siddharth Pandey and Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Mr. H.B. Agrawal, senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Mr. Anurag Singh, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Mr. N. Naha Roy, Mr. Vinay Pandey, Mr. A.K. Prasad and Ms. Suchita Bais, and Mr. Bharat Rajput.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Compassionate appointment - The Court examined the applicability of policy provisions regarding compassionate appointments, especially Clause 6A of a circular that prohibits such appointments if any family member is in government service - Court set aside the rejection of compassionate appointment for a petitioner whose brother is in the Army under a contractual agreement - Asserted need for factual enquiry into familial support and employment status. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 19, 37)

(B) Policy Interpretation - The policy must be applied as a strict rule, and the court clarified that while compassionate appointment is a concession, dependency claims need factual verification, especially if another family member supports them financially - The judgment emphasized the court's inability to alter government policy on compassionate employment. (Paras 42, 70)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s father died while in employment, resulting in the petition for a compassionate appointment denied on the grounds that a sibling was already in the Indian Army. The Court found the denial unacceptable due to the conditional nature of his service.

Findings of Court:
The dismissal of the claims was found to improperly apply the policy. The petitioner’s claims of dependency and separate living conditions were acknowledged, necessitating an independent inquiry into financial support.

Issues: The legal questions revolved around the strict application of Clause 6A and requirements for verifying familial dependency.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the interpretation of employment under the policy hinges on dependency and not merely on the existence of employment within the same family, recognizing the necessity for inquiry into individual circumstances.

Result: WPS No. 6689/2018 and WA No. 110/2020 are allowed; the remaining WPS Nos. are dismissed.

Table of Content
1. requirements for compassionate appointment. (Para 2 , 3)
2. discussion on clause 6a of the policy. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments against clause 6a. (Para 11 , 12 , 17 , 18)
4. importance of the policy applicable at the time of application. (Para 30 , 32 , 36)
5. final decision outcomes for petitions. (Para 52 , 56 , 70)

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that as the issue relates to compassionate appointment, the matters may be heard and disposed of by this Bench.

2. In Writ Petition (S) No. 6689 of 2018, a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2022, had observed that the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No. 2278/2017, decided on 23.11.2017) requires reconsideration by a larger Bench in accordance with Rule 33 of the HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES , 2007 on the question formulated, which is as follows:

“Whether this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to direct the State Government to hold an enquiry qua the dependency / financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant, who is already in Government service, to the dependent of the deceased Government servant claiming compassionate appointment whereas, the policy dated 29.8.2016 does not stipulate any such enquiry and then consider the application for compassionate appointment, as bar being absolute?”

3. Facts, in a nutshell, WPS No. 6689/2018 are as follows: Chandrabhushan Sinha, father of the petitioner in WPS No. 6689/2018, while working as Assistant Grade-II in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, died-inharness on 03.12.2017. He left behind his wife, the petitioner and another son, namely, Dinesh Kumar Sinha. The petitioner filed an application dated 02.01.2018 claiming compassionate appointment. The application was rejected by an order dated 14.09.2018 taking recourse to Clause 6A of the Circular No. F7-2012/1-3, Naya Raipur, dated 29.08.2016 of the General Administration Department, which stipulated that if any member of the family of the deceased government servant is already in government service, then any other member of the family will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's brother – Dinesh Kumar Sinha is working under Indian Army on contractual basis. It is submitted in the writ petition that Dinesh Kumar Sinha was living separately from the petitioner's family.

4. At the outset, it is relevant to state that the appointment on compassionate ground is based on Consolidated Revised Instructions on Compassionate Appointment – 2013, for short, the Policy.

5. Circular dated 29.08.2016, which is referred to in the order dated 14.09.2018, is an amendment effected to Clause 6A. After the order dated 12.01.2022 was passed by the learned Single Judge, writ petitions, namely, WPS Nos. 2887/2017, 169/2022, 197/2022, 223/2022, 270/2022, 561/2022, 592/2022, 596/2022, 652/2022, 823/2022, 920/2022, 931/2022, 1136/2022, 1196/2022, 1418/2022 were directed to be placed along with WPS No. 6689 of 2018 and accordingly, they are listed together for consideration of this Court along with WA No. 110/2020. Accordingly, the writ petitions/writ appeal have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

6. Having regard to the issues arising in these petitions, at the outset, it will be relevant to take note of Clauses 5 and 6A of the Policy which, translated into English, as furnished, read as under:

(a) Spouse of deceased government employee,

(b) Son/adopted son,