The inaction of the respondent authorities in regularizing the services of the petitioner's father during his lifetime led to the court's decision to allow the petition and direct the compassionate appointment of the petitioner.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated 10.08.2015 (part of Anneuxre P/1) issued by Respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner was working as daily wager employee (Time-Keeper) from 01.02.19982 with Sub Divisional Officer, Kawardha. Vide order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/1), the services of the petitioner’s father were regularised whose name finds in the said regularisation order at Sl. No.129. During the service period, the petitioner’s father died on 08.06.2014 (Annexure P/2) leaving behind two children and wife. After the death of petitioner’s father, the petitioner on 05.12.2014 (Annexure P/4) applied for compassionate appointment. The petitioner repeatedly made request for compassionate appointment vide applications dated 07.04.2015, 23.04.2015 and 28.04.2015 (Annexure P/4), however, the respondent authorities instead of granting compassionate appointment hibernated his file. During the pendency of compassionate appointment matter with respondent authorities, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.2241/2015, wherein vide order dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure P/5), this Court disposed of the petition of the petitioner directing the respondent No.2 therein to consider and decided the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment by a speaking order. Thereafter, in compliance to the above order dated 03.07.2015, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P/6) on 20.07.2015, which was dismissed by the Respondent No.2 holding that the petitioner’s father was daily wage employee and according to the Clause (17) of Circular No.F7-1/2012/1-3, New Raipur dated 14.06.2013, issued by the General Administration Department, Govt. of C.G., on the death of a daily wage employee, his dependent family members will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s):-

“10.1.The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent authority to appointment petitioner on compassionate ground.

10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Letter dt. 10.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) and further direct to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment.

10.3 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct any suitable direction against the Respondent in the circumstances of the case.

10.4 Any other relief, which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in regularisation order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-1), it is specifically mentioned that services of the petitioner’s father namely Chand Ram Kahra, whose name finds place at serial No.129, has been regularised on the post of Timekeeper. Even then the respondent authorities ignoring the aforesaid fact has rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, which is not only illegal but shows mala fide intention of the respondent authorities. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after sad demise of his father, who was the sole earning member of the petitioner’s family. After the death of petitioner’s father, they are facing financial crisis. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualification and criteria for compassionate appointment but the respondent authorities did not consider his case and rejected the same on false and frivolous ground. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground for sad demise of his father who was regular employee of respondent authorities.

4. Learned counsel for State/respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as per the Circular dated 14.06.2013