Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramswarup Sahu - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPS No. 5857 of 2021
Decided On : 15-01-2025
(A) Compassionate Appointment Policy - The policy for compassionate appointment must be applied based on the circumstances at the time of the employee's death, not retrospectively. The dismissal of the petitioner's application was based on an inapplicable policy that was not in force at the time of the father's death. (Paras 5, 10, 11)
(B) Legal Precedent - The Supreme Court has established that the date of death of the employee is a fixed factor for determining eligibility for compassionate appointment, and subsequent policy changes cannot affect this eligibility. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a government employee, on 28.12.2014. His application was dismissed based on a policy that was not in effect at the time of death. (Paras 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the petitioner's application was erroneous as the policy in question was not in existence at the time of the father's death, and thus the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment. (Paras 11, 12)
Issues: The main issues were whether the policy for compassionate appointment could be applied retrospectively and whether the petitioner was eligible for appointment given the circumstances of his father's death. (Paras 5, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the policy for compassionate appointment must be based on the conditions at the time of the employee's death, and the amended policy cannot be applied retrospectively. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: The petition is allowed, and the authorities are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner within 90 days.
Order :
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s.
2. By this petition, this petitioner has sought following relief :
“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order 21.9.2021 issued by respondent no.3 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the claim of petitioner afresh in accordance with law, in the ends of justice.
10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including cost.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28.12.2014 and the petitioner being son of the deceased employee has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.01.2015 subsequently on 29.08.2016, his application was dismissed on 02.07.2015 on the ground that in the family of the petitioner his brother is already in government service. The petition was filed against the said order bearing WPS No.3324 of 2016 on 28.07.2016. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government has framed amended policy for grant of compassionate appointment on 29.08.2016, according to which if anyone in the family member is a government servant than the person concerned will not be entitled to get compassionate appointment. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the earlier writ petition bearing WPS No. 3324/2016 ( Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ) was heard and the matter was remanded back to the authorities concerned to explore the dependency and also to see whether the brother is giving assistance to the petitioner or not. Subsequently, on 21.09.2021 the respondent authorities have dismissed the case of the petitioner on the ground that one of the family members i.e. his brother is in government service. As such, the petitioner cannot be granted compassionate appointment. The petitioner has filed another petition bearing WPS No.5857/2021, challenging and questioning the order dated 21.09.2021 the matter was again remanded back by this Court for considering the aspects it was found by this Court that the respondent authorities have not conducted proper enquiry in order to determine whether the petitioner was dependent upon the deceased employee or not and whether the brothers are giving assistance or not. The State Government went before the Division Bench by filing a writ appeal against the said order of remand. The writ appeal was partly allowed in favour of the petitioner while remanding back the matter which is the present matter, as such the petitioner is praying that since the ground for dismissal of compassionate appointment is not in accordance with law, as at the time of death of the deceased employee, the policy for compassionate appointment debarring the petitioner, in case one of the family members are in government servant is not in existence and as such the respondent authorities have committed illegality while dismissing the petition for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that one of the family members are in government service. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.5077 of 2017 ( Naresh Kumar Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ). Vide order dated 25.09.2017 it was held that while framing a question in para-1 and it has been dealt in para-5 stating that since the circular was not in existence and was not in force at the time of death of the petitioner as such, the benefit of said circular would not be given to the respondents and the case of the petitioner would be considered on some different aspect and not on the basis of circular issued in the year 2016. In the earlier circular dated 14.06.2013, it was not the condition precedent that if any family members are in government servic
The compassionate appointment policy must be applied based on the conditions at the time of the employee's death, not retrospectively.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the policy regarding compassionate appointment and the applicability of subsequent amendments to the case of the petitioner.
The applicable policy for compassionate appointment is the one in force at the time of the employee's death, not the date of application filing.
Compassionate employment is granted on humanitarian grounds and is not a vested right. The policy prevailing at the time of the deceased employee's death is crucial for determining compassionate appo....
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
