Dismissed

Smt. Kaushalya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Nov 2009WA/206/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ appeal against the rejection of a widow's application for compassionate appointment. The application was filed ten months after the death of her husband, violating the statutory three-month time limit prescribed by state circulars. The Court held that strict adherence to the timeline was required and no interference was warranted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Kaushalya Bai Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF^{‘CHHATTISGARH} AT BILASPUR

¶2

D‘B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON’BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ

¶3

Writ Appeal No. 206 of 2008 Appeilant : Smt. Kaushalya Bai. W/o Late Shri Bhola Ram Petitioner Kunjam, aged about 41 years, Resident of Village Kohalakasa, Post-Chichola, Pahchayat Madiyan, Block—Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Director, Public instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) 3. The District Education Officer, District Kawardha (CG) 4. Block Education Officer, Block Sahaspur Lohara, District Kawardha (CG)

¶4

Present:

¶5

Mr. Rakesh Antony, counsel for the appellant.

¶6

Mr. Vinay Harit, learned Dy AG with^{ShriSKMishra,PanelLawyerfor} the State.

¶7

ORAL ORDER

¶8

(Passed^{on5‘“November,2009)}

¶9

Par nhirgndra Mishm .I ’l. Appellant's husband Shri Bholaram Kunjam died on 3.12.2000 while working as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department of the State Govt. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 1.10.2001. However, her application was rejected by the District^{EducationOfficer.}

¶10

‘\

¶11

9B The appellant filed a writ petition before^{thisCourtfordirectionto} the respondents to provide her^{compassionateappointment,which} has been further rejected^{withafindingthatthe} petitioner^filedthe application for compassionate appointment^{on1.10.2001whereas} as per Circular dated 1.5.2000 issued by the erstwhile State Government, the application for^{compassionateappointmentcould} be filed only within a period^{ofthreemonths,and} in exceptional cases. where minor dependents are likely to attain majority, a relaxation of th‘ree years has^been provided^{forfilingapplicationfor} compassionate appointment. Since the petitioner, did not file application for compassionate^{appotntmentwithinthetimeas} per,

¶12

¶13

E)u

¶14

CircuEar in fame, na {i%i'ec%ian cara be i$3ued for con3idering the “436 of me geti‘iimer fer aempasgionate^appointment.

¶15

:31 "zhe imgmgried order, ii has been futiher observed that the 3ppi mimn far compassionate^{appointmentwasfinallyrejected} in the year 2005 whereas^{theauthoritiesarerequiredtodecidesuch} applications expeditiously, keeping in view the object^of grant^of compassionate appointment.

¶16

From perusal of the record^ofwrit petition, it appears that the^order impugned has been passed^{withoutobtaininganyreturnfromthe} State.

¶17

ln the proceedings of the writ^{appeal,theState/respondentswere} permitted^{tofiletheircounteraffidavitand} in their counter affidavit they have averred that the appellant applied for providing compassionate appointment to her brother-in-law on 16.2.2001 and the same was^{reiectedon24.2.2001.Thereafter,sheapplied} for compassionate appointment^forherselfon 1.10.2001 and the same was rejected on 24.12.2001 on the ground that the application has been filed^beyondthe prescribed period^ofthree months as per relevant^{circularsoftheStateGovt.}

¶18

1. Learned counsel for the appellant^{submitsthattheappellantisan} illiterate widow, she was not^{awareofthefactthattheapplication} was required to be tiled within a period of three months, and in these circumstances, her^{applicationcouldnotberejectedsolely} on the ground that the^{applicationwasmedbeyondthe} prescribed period^{ofthreemonths.}

¶19

On the other hand, Shri^{VinayHarit,learnedDy.AdvocateGeneral} for the State/respondents,^{submitsthatadverseobservationswere} made in the impugned order^{astheStatedidnotfilereturnand} bring the true facts^onrecord. From perusal of the^{documentsfiled} with the counter affidavit. it would be evident^{thattheapplications} for compassionate^appointment preferred by the appellant we're expeditiously processed^{andthesameweredecidedas} per policy of the State Government^{containedinCirculardated1.5.2000.}

¶20

We haVe heard learned^counsel for the parties and perused^the impugned order as Well as the^counter affidavit and’documents tiled by the State.

¶21

¶22

It is not in dispute that the appellant med appiication for compassionate appointment on 1.10.2001 Le. almost 10 months after the death of her husband, whereas Circular dated 1.5.2000 dearly stipulates that the application for compassionate appointment is to be tiled within a period of three months. The application was rejected on the ground that the same has been med beyond the period of three months.

¶23

it is settled law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment. but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the‘family in distress for reliving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide empioyment. It is equally weii settied that the compassionate appointment may be provided in consonance with the constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be given dehors to the rules applicable for such appointment.

¶24

in the instant case, the appellant's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the period prescribed in Circular dated 1.5.2000 of the State Government. Considering this aspect, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the same is strictiy in accordance with the settled principles of law and does not caii for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance

¶25

is hereby dismissed. “MW r ’ i; 1i Sd/— Sd/' Dhirendra Mishra R'N' CHAN^{mt AKAR.} “ Judge Judge

Smt. Kaushalya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Kaushalya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bindu Gurjar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Parsadi Ram Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Others Vs Geetanjali Constructions (Colonizer Developer and Builder) and 2 Others

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs Balkrishan Kuldip Kumar (Huf)

Lochan Prasad Vs Anil Thorani

Lekh Ram Mohalia Vs State of C.G. and Ors.