Dismissed¶30

Ku.sulbha Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC19 Mar 2024WPS/2135/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC dismisses 2014 writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for daughter of teacher who died in harness 18.01.2000; application made in 2012 beyond 3-year scheme limitation (5-year exceptional extension); no vested right; no mandamus after prolonged delay; reliance on State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219; counsel cited Supram Prasad (W.A. No. 305/2012) and Hitesh Rao (W.P.(S) No. 6074/2008).

What did the court decide?

A claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the concerned employee; the petitioner's application made more than 12 years after the death exceeds the scheme's limitation of 3 years (extendable to 5 years only exceptionally) and does not fall within the scheme. ¶22

Ku.sulbha Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who attained majority in 2012 and applied more than 12 years after her father's death in harness on 18.01.2000, is entitled to compassionate appointment despite the State scheme limiting claims to 3 years (extendable to 5 years only under exceptional circumstances). +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the scheme or policy formulated by the employer for compassionate appointment, this Court cannot step into the shoes of the employer to enact or frame any policy.

¶24

Key takeaways

The petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment as per the State policy, and no writ of mandamus can be issued after prolonged delay since the death of the concerned employee; accordingly she has no good case for grant of compassionate appointment.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment - claim rejected for prolonged delay. Petitioner, minor daughter of a Primary School Teacher who died in harness on 18.01.2000, applied for compassionate appointment in 2012 on attaining majority; the State scheme (Annexure R-1, dated 14.06.2013) allows applications within 3 years of the employee's death, extendable to 5 years only under exceptional circumstances. Held: (i) a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period since the employee's death; (ii) where the applicant does not fall within the ambit of the employer's scheme, the Court cannot step into the employer's shoes to enact or frame policy; (iii) the petitioner has no vested right and no writ of mandamus can issue after prolonged delay. Reliance placed on State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219. Writ Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.2135 of 2014

¶4

Ku. Sulbha Tiwari D/o Late Sunil Tiwari Aged About 19 Years R/o Village And Post Potiyadih, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari ,at Present Residing At Baramhanpara Ward Dhamtari Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari Cg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶7

The Collector Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari C.G.

¶8

District Education Officer, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner: Shri Sudhanshu Kumar appears on behalf of Shri BP Singh, Advocates. For Respondents/State: Shri Amandeep Singh PL.

¶11

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board

¶12

20.03.2024

¶13

This Petition has been filed by the Petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment for which, she applied on attaining the age of majority in the year 2012, on account of death of her father in harness on 18.01.2000.

¶14

The summed up facts of the case are that the father of the Petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in Primary School,

¶15

¶16

Dargahan on 23.01.1984 and the Petitioner was born on 04.08.1994 and her mother has died on 13.03.1998 and after 2 years of her death, her father also died on 18.01.2000 during his service tenure, therefore, in such circumstances, the Petitioner was shifted to her maternal grand father. As the grand father of the Petitioner was having no sufficient means to maintain her and as she attained majority in the year 2012 and also acquired a degree of Computer Education, Advanced Diploma in Computer Management, therefore, she applied for compassionate appointment, which was declined by the Respondent authorities. Hence this Petition.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the State has formulated a policy for compassionate appointment (Annexure R-1) on 14.06.2013 and as per the said scheme/policy framed by the State Government, the Petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment and only on the ground of delay, her claim cannot be rejected by the State authorities. He further submits that as the Petitioner was minor at the time of death of her father and there was no one in the family to take care of her, therefore, the Respondent authorities should have considered the same on pure and simple sympathetic approach rather than with legalist or technical approach. He lastly submits that it was the duty of the employer to inform the procedure of compassionate appointment to

¶18

¶19

the dependent family members at the time of death of the deceased employee. He refers to the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by this Court in W.A No.305 of 2012 (Supram Prasad vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.) and order dated 23.02.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.6074/2008 (Hitesh Rao vs. State Government of Chhattisgarh) and prays to allow the Petition.

¶20

On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that in the Scheme formulated by the State, there is a specific period of limitation of 3 years and only under exceptional circumstances, the said period can be extended up to 5 years and in the instant case, the application for compassionate appointment has been filed by the Petitioner after more than 12 years, which goes to show that there was no distress in the family. He placed reliance on the matter of S tate of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 and prays to dismiss the Petition.

¶21

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed herewith carefully.

¶22

It is well settled that claim of the compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the concerned employee. Even otherwise, there is a specific provision in the scheme stipulated by the State Government wherein, the limitation has been mentioned as 3 years

¶23

¶24

in normal circumstances and only for exceptional reasons, the said period can be extended up to 5 years. In the present case, when the Petitioner does not fall in the ambit of the scheme or policy formulated by the employer for compassionate appointment, this Court cannot step into the shoes of the employer to enact or frame any policy.

¶25

In the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others (supra), it was categorically observed that the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution and at para-35, the following was materially observed:-

¶26

“35 . Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source.

¶27

¶28

Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh[(1997) 8 SCC 85] would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.”

¶29

In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the facts of the present case and further keeping in mind the relevant policy of compassionate appointment formulated by the State, this Court reaches to the conclusion that the Petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment as per the policy formulated by the State and no writ of mandamus can be issued after prolonged delay since the death of the concerned employee. Thus, the Petitioner has no good case for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶30

Consequently, the Writ Petition, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Priya

¶32

Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

Ku.sulbha Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku.sulbha Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Coal Mines Offi. Asso. of India and Anr. Vs C.I.L. and Another

Ramkaran Prajapati @ Karan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhupendra Singh Sandilya Vs Dharmavati Netam

Smt.shanti Bais Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Bela Humne Vs The Dena Bank

Smt. Meena Sinha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh