Dismissed

Yogesh Kumar Sahu v. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jan 2023WPS/2542/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment for his father's death or alternative ex-gratia payment. The High Court reviewed the rejection based on financial eligibility norms applicable at the time of application assessment and dismissed the petition, finding no illegality.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; claim for compassionate appointment rejected based on financial eligibility determined under prevailing policy norms at the time of application consideration.

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 2542 of 2012

¶5

Order reserved on : 09/11/2022

¶6

Order Pronounced on: 20/01/2023

¶7

Yogesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Ramnath Sahu, Aged about 25 years, R/o Village & Post - Pacheda, Tahsil & District - Mahasamund C.G.

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, through its Chairman, 15, Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur District- Raipur C.G.

¶11

Managing Director (Administration), Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, 15 Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur District- Raipur C.G.

¶12

Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Branch - Panduka, Tehsil - Gariyaband, District- Raipur C.G.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Judge CAV Order

¶16

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the inaction of respondents by which respondent authorities have denied the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and he is directed to accept the ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's father late Ram Nath

¶18

¶19

Sahu was an employee of the respondent Bank and was working as clerk-cum-cashier in Branch- Panduka, Tehsil Gariyaband, who expired on 23.12.2005 during the course of employment. After the death of his father, the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment before the respondents in accordance with the scheme for compassionate appointment. After several requests instead of considering his request for compassionate appointment, it was informed by the authority that as per the scheme, ex-gratia amount will be paid to the family members in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds in C.G. Gramin Bank. As such, being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action of respondent, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing number WP(S) No.4825 of 2008 before this Court challenging the letter dated 25.05.2007 whereby petitioner was asked to accept the exgratia amount and further for providing compassionate appointment. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with direction to the respondent authorities to consider application of the petitioner in accordance with the prevailing law and policy, on its own merits as expeditiously as possible. Petitioner has submitted all the relevant information necessary for consideration of his application before the respondent authorities but finally even after submission of all the requisite information before the authorities, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 21.02.2012 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner was not found eligible for entitlement of compassionate appointment and dismissed the

¶20

¶21

application of the petitioner dated 15.06.2006, therefore, petitioner has filed this petition and sought following reliefs:-

¶22

10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶23

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) and 03.02.2012 passed by the respondent authority, whereby the application of the petitioner was rejected.

¶24

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 & 2 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶25

10.4 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem it fit

¶26

& proper and may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. Respondent authorities even admitted the fact before this Court that petitioner's case would be considered in accordance with policy prevalent at the time of making application, even then his candidature has been rejected without any reason on baseless counts. Petitioner's father expired on 23.12.2005 and new policy for grant of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment has been introduced later on after the death of petitioner's father but the respondent authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner arbitrarily without any reason though as per the scheme, petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria and he is entitled for being appointed in accordance with the scheme for compassionate appointment. The scheme for compassionate appointment dated 12.10.1998 has not at all been applied by the respondents in the present case. As per the scheme of

¶28

¶29

compassionate appointment, the petitioner is eligible for being appointed on compassionate basis but by an unreasoned order his claim has been rejected. It is further submitted that Respondent bank neither assessed the financial condition of the petitioner in accordance with the Scheme nor the impugned order reflects that the case of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the scheme. The impugned order nowhere mentions as to whether any determination of financial status of the deceased employee has been made nor the same discloses the fact that under what consideration, the case of the petitioner was found for being rejected. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the scheme dated 18.05.2007 was not in force and as such before this Court, respondents had submitted that petitioner's case will be considered in accordance with the policy prevailing at the time of application, even then again the respondent authorities have rejected the application without any ground. The action of the respondents is discriminatory and illegal as the respondents have given compassionate appointment to many persons in the year 2006. He further submits that all the requisite information and certificates have already been submitted before the respondent authorities within time as per the direction of this Court but the respondent authorities delayed the matter on their part and ultimately rejected the case of the petitioner. The action of the respondent Bank in not providing the compassionate employment to the petitioner is without any rhyme or reason whereas the entire information has already been submitted before the authorities. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

¶30

¶31

reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Amit Shrivas reported in (2020) 10 SCC 496 , Indian Bank & others Vs. Promila & another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 , Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (dead) by LRs. Vs. O.V. Narasimha Setty & others reported in (2007) 3 SCC 569 , Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & others Vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1264, State of Himachal Pradesh & Another Vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653 , State Bank of India & others Vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari reported in (2019) 5 SCC 600 , State Bank of India & another Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 , MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 and Canara Bank & another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 .

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that by staff circular No. 151 dated 29.01.1988 (Annexure R-1), the Bank for the first time framed a scheme for compassionate appointment to the dependants of employees of the Bank who die while in service. The scheme vide Annexure R-1 was replaced by scheme vide staff circular dated 15.01.1999 (Annexure R-2) which came into effect from 12.10.1998 and in this circular, the condition of analysis of financial condition of the petitioner was added to this scheme vide circular dated 31.03.2000 (Annexure R-3) and after that by staff circular dated 11.08.2004, it was clarified that by Annexure- R-3, the condition of financial analysis has been added not to Annexure R-2 but to

¶33

¶34

Annexure R-1. Circular dated 11.08.2004 is Annexure R-4, thus 1988 scheme vide annexure R-1 read with condition of financial analysis became applicable in matters of compassionate appointment with effect from 11.08.2004. Thus, right from 12.10.1998, the condition of financial analysis has been a part of the scheme for compassionate appointment. The application of the petitioner was rejected on reasonable ground. It was found that the deceased at the time of his death was drawing monthly salary at the rate of Rs.10359.25/- 50% whereof comes to Rs.5179.62/-. It was also found that the monthly income of the family after the death of deceased comes to Rs.5872/- per month. Hence, it was found that the deceased did not die in penury and the family had sufficient income even after the death of the deceased. Hence, it was not a fit case for grant of compassionate appointment. The entire exercise as above will be depicted clearly by the proceedings of the Board dated 03.02.2012 with the recommendation made by the Manager Personnel and Chief Manager Personnel which is annexed herewith as Annexure R-5. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment deserves to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on this Court's order dated 18.10.2022 passed in WP(S) No. 1685 of 2014 (Gendram Baghel Vs. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & others).

¶35

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶36

The Court's order dated 04.05.2011 passed in WPS No. 4825 of 2008 is as under:-

¶37

¶38

“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

At the very outset, Shri Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the policy prevalent at the time of making of application for grant of compassionate appointment would be applicable for consideration of the application.

¶40

In view of that, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the dispute. However, the respondent authorities may consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the prevailing law and policy, as aforestated, on its own merits and pass order, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks, in view of the fact that the application is for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the relevant informations necessary for consideration of the application of the petitioner shall be supplied to the respondent authorities within a period of one week.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.”.

¶43

Pursuant to the above Court's order, petitioner has supplied all certificates to the respondent authorities but the respondent authorities dismissed the claim of the petitioner.

¶44

Petitioner's application was dismissed on the following grounds of

¶45

the order dated 03.02.2012 (Annexure R/5), which are as under:-

¶46

erd lsok;qDr ds ifjokj ds vkfFkZd fLFkfr dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k ftlls ;g Li’V gS fd ifjokj dh ekfld vk;] erd lsok;qDrksa ds vafre osru ds 50 izfr'kr ls vf/kd gSA vr% lsok;qDr dh eR;q dh frfFk ij ykxw u;s fn'kk funsZ'kks ds vuqlkj erd ds mRrjkf/kdkjh iRuh }kjk ukfer iq= dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha jg tkrhA

¶47

vk; dh x.kuk rRdkyhu vf/kdre LVkQ dks ns; C;kt 6-25% izfr o’kZ dh nj ij ekfld #- 2419-97 + isa'ku #- 3077 + #- 375 dqy #- 5871-97 e`rd dh vafre ekfld osru #- 10359-25 ds 50 izfr'kr #- 5179-62 ls vf/kd gSA vr% vkosnd vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq vik= gSA

¶48

ekuo 'kfDr fu;kstu ekun.M ds vk/kkj ij 31@03@2011 dh frfFk ij

¶49

¶50

fyfid lg jksdfM+;k ds 94 in fjDr gSA bl laca/k esa Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSadksa ds fy;s fn;s x;s vuqdEik fu;qfDr funsZ'k ds vk/kkj ij cSad }kjk tkjh ifji= esa ;g mYys[k gS fd **fu;qfDr;ka fof'k‘V orZeku fjfDr;ksa ;k visf{kr fjfDr;ksa ij dh tk;sxhA vr% orZeku fu;qfDr;ksa ds fo:} fu;qfDr iznku dh tk ldrh gSA rFkkfi lyaXu vuqeksfnr uksV'khV fnukad 31@01 @2012 For declining the case of compassionate ground appointment case Shri Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o late Shri Ram Nath Sahu Ex. C/C esa mYysf[kr x.kuk ,ao izLrko ds df.Mdk 11 esa x.kuk ds m/k`.k ls Li‘V gS fd Lo- Jh jkeukFk lkgw Hkwiwfyjks- ds mRrjkf/kdkjh dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha vkrhA vr% Jh ;ksxs'k dqekj lkgq dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fyfid lg jksdfM+;k ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dk vkosnu fujLr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment as per prevailing rules of old scheme for compassionate appointment but now the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors (2020) 7 SCC 617 has held in paragraphs 14 to

¶52

19 which are as under:-

¶53

This Court in SBI vs. Raj Kumar while reiterating that no aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment, declared that the norms that are in force, when the application is actually considered, will be applicable. The employer’s right to modify the scheme depending on its policies was recognized in this judgment. Similarly in MCB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh this Court reiterated that compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme and no aspirant can claim that his case should be considered as per the scheme existing on the date of death of the Government employee. 15. However in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar in the context of major shift in policy, whereunder, instead of compassionate appointment (envisaged by the scheme dated 8.5.1993), ex gratia payment was proposed (under the circular dated 14.02.2005), the Court adopted a different approach. Noticing the extinguishment of, the right to claim appointment, this Court held the “dying in harness scheme” which was prevalent on the death of the employee, be the basis for consideration.

¶54

A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U.Lalit noticed the Supreme Court’s view in SBI v. RajKumar (supra) and MCB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply. Accordingly, in State of Bank of India and Ors. vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari the Court referred

¶55

¶56

the matter for consideration by a larger Bench so that the conflicting views could be reconciled.

¶57

The above discussion suggest that the view taken in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) is to be reconciled with the contrary view of the coordinate bench, in the two earlier judgments. Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellants counsel on Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, it can not be said that the appellants claim should be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee.

¶58

In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the bench, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The Dependent of a deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy.

¶59

Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.

¶60

The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the judgment in the case of N.C. Santhosh (supra) again observed in para-19 of the judgment in case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree (2021) SCC online 704 as under:-

¶61

From the aforesaid rules it can be seen that only ‘unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ who were dependent upon the deceased female Government servant at the time of her death and living with her can be said to be ‘dependent’ of a deceased Government servant and that ‘an unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ only can be said to be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in the case of death of the female Government servant. Rule 2 and Rule 3 reproduced hereinabove do not include ‘divorced daughter’ as eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and even as ‘dependent’. As observed hereinabove and even as held by this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh (Supra), the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis of consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The word

¶62

¶63

‘divorced daughter’ has been added subsequently by Amendment, 2021. Therefore, at the relevant time when the deceased employee died and when the original writ petitioner – respondent herein made an application for appointment on compassionate ground the ‘divorced daughter’ were not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and the ‘divorced daughter’ was not within the definition of ‘dependent.’

¶64

Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar

¶65

Pradesh and Ors vs. Premlata (2022) 1 SCC 30 has held in paragraphs 8 and 9 which read as under:-

¶66

While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision this court in Civil Appeal No.5122 of 2021 in the case of the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. vs. Somashree, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this court in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Court has summarized the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:-

¶67

“10.1. that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;

¶68

10.2. that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; 10.3. the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

¶69

10.4. appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

¶70

10.5 the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.

¶71

As per the law laid down by this court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

¶72

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gendram

¶73

Baghel vs. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank & others in WPS No. 1685

¶74

of 2014 on 18.10.2022 has held in paragraph 9 which reads as under:-

¶75

“9. It is not in dispute that earlier view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that application for grant of compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the terms of the policy or circular prevailing at the time of death of government servant. This issue is no more res-integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has taken the view in case of Indian Bank and Others vs. Promila

¶76

¶77

and Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 729 and same view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suneel Kumar vs. State of UP and Others (2022) SCC online SC 999 . Again Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157 . But the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors (2020) 7 SCC 617 has considered this issue rendered by a Bench headed by three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that the subsequent policy which has been made applicable to the all the pending applications then the case of the compassionate appointment has to be considered as per new policy. In the new policy, there is specific clause which provides for grant of exgratia in lieu of compassionate appointment.”

¶78

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities wrongly calculated the income of the petitioner and illegally dismissed the claim of the petitioner but as per impugned order (Annexure R-5), it is clear that respondent authorities minutely calculated the income of the petitioner as per policy and dismissed the claim of the petitioner.

¶79

As per new policy of 18.05.2007 which is made applicable to all the pending cases, the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been not considered by the bank and the petitioner was directed to accept ex-gratia lump sum amount, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal warranting interference by this Court. Since no illegality or infirmity is found in the action of the respondents in dismissing the application of the petitioner,

¶80

the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶81

Ruchi

Yogesh Kumar Sahu v. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar Sahu v. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shanti Devi Singh Vs Nandkumar

Giriraj Solvent Ex. Pvt. Limited (Ganpati Solvent Ex. Pvt. Limited) Vs Premchand Moolchand Agrawal

Mukesh Kumar Chandrakar Vs Smt. Dipti Chandrakar

Gurjinder Pal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukhlal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh