Allowed

Pawan Kumar Ojha v. Union Of India

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jun 2023WPS/946/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. The Court held that office memorandums imposing a 25-year age limit or restricting eligibility for married sons were unrelated to the central compassionate appointment scheme, as they pertained only to medical facilities. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to consider the

What did the court decide?

The impugned memos rejecting the application are quashed. The respondent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment on merits within three months.

Pawan Kumar Ojha Vs Union Of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 946 of 2016

¶5

Pawan Kumar Ojha S/o Late Shri Y.K. Ojha, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Devadhiya, Post Parsagarh, Police Station Ekma, District Saran Bihar Pin 841220, Bihar

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Of India S/o Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs North Block Cabinet Secretariat Raisina Hill, New Delhi

¶9

Central Reserve Police Force, Through Its Director General, Block No. 1, C.G.O. Complex Lodhi, Road, New Delhi

¶10

The Inspector General Of Police C.R.P.F., Range - Bhopal, Bhopal M.P.

¶11

Dy. Inspector General Of Police Group Centre, C.R.P.F. Bharani, P.O. Ganiyari, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,

¶12

The Commandant, 80 Batalian C.R.P.F. Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner : Shri Sunil Pillai, Adv. For Respondent : Shri Ajit Singh, Adv.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

21-6-2023.

¶18

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for following relief :-

¶19

i. To direct the respondents to produce entire record pertaining to the case for perusal;

¶20

ii. To issue writ quashing the memo dated 17-8-2015, 18-92015, 24-12-2015 and 18-1-2016 as also all other order, circulars, decisions etc. consequent to which the denial was made;

¶21

iii. To direct respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground; and

¶22

iv. To order cost of petition in favour of petitioner.

¶23

¶24

Case of the petitioner, as reflected from the petition, is that father of petitioner Late Y.K. Ojha was in service in respondents/ Central Reserve Police Force and served for more than 30 years. He died on 24-8-2014 during his service due to Malaria leaving behind wife and children, they were totally dependent on income of deceased father of petitioner. The petitioner, being son of late Y.K. Ojha, applied for appointment on compassionate ground after customary rituals of his late father, which is evident from letter Annexure P-2 written by Respondent No. 5 to the petitioner to submit some other documents with regard to consider his case of compassionate appointment, subsequently the application of petitioner was rejected by the respondent/ authorities on the ground that the petitioner was already married before 4 years of death of his father and a son who is already married before the death of father, cannot be treated as dependent, in view of para (a) and (b) of DOP&T’s OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D) dated 16-1-2013 along with GIMH OM No. 4-24/96-C & P/CGHS(P) dated the 31^st May 2007 and 25^th February, 2009. The petitioner was informed accordingly vide memo dated 17-8-2015 (Annexure P-3). The same reason was also mentioned in information given by respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 18-9-2015, 24-12-2015 & 18-1-2016. Hence, petitioner has filed instant petition seeking the relief as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.

¶25

The respondents have filed reply, stating that after due examination of documents and considering all the facts of the case in the light of existing instructions and guidelines of the Central Government’s scheme of compassionate appointment, the petitioner has not been found eligible for compassionate appointment for the reason that he got married on 14-5-2010 i.e. more than 4 years ago from death of his father, as such, he cannot be treated as a dependent of his deceased father. The wife of deceased Smt. Yogawali Devi also forwarded an application/ representation for review of the matter, who was informed by the respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 18-1-2016 (Page 42 of petition) that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to her son

¶26

¶27

Pawan Kumar Ojha (petitioner) as he is married prior to death of his father, however she was informed to apply for another child, who is competent and willing to be appointed on the post of constable/GD on compassionate ground.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that he got married four years prior to death of his father is illegal, as the consolidated Instruction/scheme for compassionate appointment issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel & Training) on 16-1-2013 (Annexure P-1) to grant compassionate appointment applicable in this case, nowhere disentitle a married son to get appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that it is clear from Annexure P-3 dated 17-8-2015, whereby petitioner has been informed about rejection of his application, that the petitioner has been treated as not dependent upon his deceased father, on the basis of para (a) and (b) of DOP&T’s OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D) dated 16-1-2013 along with GIMH OM No. 4-24/96-C & P/CGHS(P) dated the 31^st May 2007 and 25^th February, 2009 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Health & Family Welfare, but memo dated 31-52007 (Annexure R-7)and 252-2009 (Annexure R-8) are not concerned with compassionate appointment, rather it relates to age limit to avail medical facilities under CGHS and Central Services (MA) Rules, 1944, and, for that purpose, age limit is 25 years, not for compassionate appointment. Thus, these office memorandums are not applicable in the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that such restriction has not been provided in Consolidated Instructions on compassionate appointment dated 16-1-2013 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Annexure P-1). Denial of petitioner to grant compassionate appointment by the respondents is against Clause 2 of aforesaid scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and relief sought may be granted.

¶29

¶30

On the other hand, referring to its return, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that because the age of petitioners was more than 25 years and he had already got married 4 years prior to death of his father, hence he cannot be treated as dependent on the deceased, as per memo Annexure P-1 dated 161-2013 issued by the Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training), New Delhi and Annexure R-7 and Annexure R-8 issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi. Information in this regard has been given to the petitioner and his mother vide impugned letters. Thus, the claim of the petitioner of compassionate appointment has rightly been denied by the respondent/ authorities, therefore, this petition may be dismissed.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

Perusal of the memo dated 17-8-2015 (Annexure P-3) shows that petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been rejected in view of para (a) and (b) of DOP&T’s OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D) dated 16-1-2013 along with GIMH OM No. 4-24/96-C & P/CGHS(P) dated the 31^st May 2007 and 25^th February, 2009. Memo 31-5-2007 and 25-2-2009 have been filed by the respondents as Annexure R-6 and R-7 respectively. The subject mentioned in both the above office memorandums is same and reproduced below :-

¶33

“Age limit for dependent children of Government servants and pensioners for availing medical facilities under CGHS and Central Services (MA) Rules, 1944.”

¶34

The Office memo No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D) dated 16-12013 has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Departmental of Personnel & Training) which is a Scheme for Compassionate appointment. Clause 1 of the Scheme speaks about object of Scheme for compassionate appointment and Clause 2 provides as

¶35

¶36

to whom it will be applicable. Clause 1 and 2 of the Scheme are reproduced below :-

¶37

“1. OBJECT

¶38

The object of the Scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.

¶39

2. TO WHOM APPLICABLE

¶40

To a dependent family member -

¶41

(A) of a Government servant who -

¶42

(a) dies while in service (including death by suicide); and

¶43

(b) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rules, 1957 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Services Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants)’ or

¶44

(c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Services Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants); or

¶45

(B) of a member of the Armed Forces who -

¶46

(a) dies during service; or

¶47

(b) is killed in action; or

¶48

¶49

¶50

Note 1 “ Dependent Family Member ” means (a) spouse: or

¶51

(b) son (including adopted son); or

¶52

¶53

(d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant or

¶54

(e) member of the Armed Forces referred to in (A) or (B) of this para,

¶55

– who was wholly dependent on the Government servant/ member of the Armed Forces, at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical ground, as the case may be.”

¶56

Note II “ Government servant” for the purpose of instructions means a Government servant appointed on regular basis and not one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis.

¶57

Note III “Confirmed work-charged staff” will also be covered by the term ‘Government servant’ mentioned in Note III above.

¶58

Note IV “Service” includes extension in service (but not re-employment) after attaining the normal age of retirement in a civil post.

¶59

Note V “Re-employment” does not include employment of ex-serviceman before the normal age of retirement in a civil post.”

¶60

On going through the above provisions, it is manifest that no age limit is provided for compassionate appointment. Further, it also does not contemplate that, a son already married at the time of

¶61

¶62

death of his father employed in armed force, is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The memos dated 31-5-2007 (Annexure R-7) and 25-2-2009 (Annexure R-8) have no concern with the compassionate appointment, as they relate to only availing medical facilities. Petitioner has stated that, financial condition of their family is in penury /pitiable after demise of his father, as he was the sole bread earner, persistent ill health of his mother, has worsened their financial situation, thus, they are in great need of financial help. Considering aforesaid provisions and factual matrix of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, rejection of application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground mentioned in Annexure P-3 dated 17-8-2015, 18-9-2015, 24-12-2015 and 18-1-2016 issued by respondent No. 5 is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of the Scheme (Annexure P-1) formulated for compassionate appointment.

¶63

In the result, the instant petition is allowed. Denial of respondent/authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner and informing them vide memo dated 17-8-2015, 18-92015, 24-12-2015 and 18-1-2016 (Annexure P-3 Collectively) is quashed. The respondent authority/competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on its own merit as per rules as early as possible, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶64

In view of above, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶65

Sd/(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶66

Pathak/-

Pawan Kumar Ojha v. Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Ojha v. Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rammurar Singh Padwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khalid Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuleshwar Thakre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

S. K. Banjara Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

B.L. Arya Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ajay Pradhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh