Disposed

Santosh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Feb 2025WPS/1000/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of a compassionate appointment application filed after the three-month limit by the son of a deceased municipal employee. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the case and pass an appropriate order within 45 days, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed to reconsider the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim and pass appropriate order preferably within 45 days.

Santosh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.02.07 19:03:13 +0530

2025:CGHC:6566

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1000 of 2025

¶7

Santosh Yadav S/o Ganesh Ram Yadav Aged About 32 Years old R/o H.N. 1137, Aara Machine, Kashinagar, Niharika Road, Korba DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Joint Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Municipal Corporation Korba Through Its Commissioner, DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Additional Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Nagar Palika Parishad Korba Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondents-State	: Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents No.3	: Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
& 4

¶18

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

05.02.2025

¶22

1 Heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Akanksha Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. P. Acharya, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.

¶23

2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):-

¶24

“1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, denying the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment with all consequential benefits and further the petitioner may kindly be appointed by the Respondent department on compassionate appointment.

¶25

2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶26

3 The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that, the petitioner is a son of Late Shri Ganesh Ram who was an employee of Municipal Corporation, Korba District Korba, posted on the substantive post of helper/labor vide order dated 14.07.2008

¶27

¶28

passed by the Commissioner. Municipal Corporation, Korba Chhattisgarh. Late Ganesh Ram has joined his duty on dated 15.07.2008 in Municipal Corporation, Korba. During his course of service, Ganesh Ram died in harness on 26.04.2022. After the death of Late Ganesh Ram, the Petitioner was in a great shock and was left alone in the house to take further responsibility of his house. On 29.08.2022, the petitioner has filed an application for his compassionate appointment. After sitting for six months on the application for compassionate appointment made by petitioner, the Additional commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba Vide its letter dated 27.09.2022 has informed the petitioner that the application for compassionate appointment has not been made within the time period of 3 months, therefore, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be given him. The petitioner through letter dated 06.03.2023 has stated his reasons before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba as to why he was not able to prefer an application for compassionate appointment within time as he was unable to collect the documents required for compassionate appointment as well as the several departments were under the strike and hence, he has prayed that the benefit of compassionate appointment may be given in his favour, but the respondent authorities have orally given a belief to the petitioner that his ground raised in the letter dated 06.03.2023 will be considered and benefit of compassionate appointment will be given to him, but even lapse of several months, no reply or

¶29

¶30

appointment was made in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has again raised his concern through a letter dated 03.07.2023 before the Minister of Urban Administration & Development and Labor Development Department, Raipur, but till date, no response has been made.

¶31

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order being is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and the same has been passed without considering the issues faced by the petitioner. He further submits that denial of the application was based on a hyper-technical ground without considering the genuine circumstances. It has been contended that the respondent authorities have failed to adhere to the principles and objectives underlying the compassionate appointment schemes, which aim to support bereaved families in distress, but the respondent authorities have ignored the petitioner's inability to apply within the stipulated time due to strikes in various departments, preventing documents. It has been further contended that the multiple representations made by the petitioner were left unanswered, showcasing administrative apathy, hence a direction be given to the respondent authorities to reconsider his case for grant of compassionate appointment. He placed reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Saurabh Chourasiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶32

¶33

Passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.26461 of 2022 decided on

¶34

27.08.2024.

¶35

5 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submits that vide letter dated 02.06.2022, respondents authorities have forwarded the letter to respondent No.1 whereby in reply to that, respondent No.1 vide letter dated 16.08.2022 has stated that in reference of letter dated 02.06.2022 and 11.06.2022 regarding delay application filed by the petitioner for the compassionate appointment before respondent No.3, clarification has been sought in reference of the General Administration Department Chhattisgarh vide circular dated 14.06.2013 and as per clause 15 (II), the decision has to be taken strictly accordance in reference with the above-mentioned circular.

¶36

6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

¶37

7 It is a trite 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 relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment.

¶38

¶39

8 Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, that family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

9 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the impugned order has been passed in a very casual and cursory manner, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order expeditiously preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶41

10 With the aforementioned observation/direction, instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶43

Yogesh

Santosh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarun Kumar Patel Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Rasid Mohammed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uttara Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkamal Kore Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Jaideep Jha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jyoti Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh