Animesh Singh Tomar Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

his claim for compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father, Late Shri Ashok Singh Tomar, who died in harness on 15.12.1994 while serving as Assistant Grade-II in the Divisional E.H.T. Office, has been rejected. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondents to consider his subsequent representation dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure P-4).

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application/representation dated 09.10.2014 seeking compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 01.03.2016 solely on the ground of delay. He submits that thereafter the petitioner submitted a fresh representation dated 17.03.2016, specifically contending that immediately after the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner's mother had already submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 25.01.1995, but the same was never considered by the respondent authorities. It is, therefore, contended that the rejection of the petitioner's claim without considering the earlier application is arbitrary and the respondents ought to have considered the subsequent representation in accordance with law.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has neither placed on record nor produced any material to substantiate the assertion that his mother had submitted an application for compassionate

¶23

3

¶24

appointment on 25.01.1995. It is further submitted that the application dated 09.10.2014 was admittedly filed nearly two decades after the death of the employee and, therefore, the same was rightly rejected as being hopelessly barred by delay. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No. 1866 of 2015, which was disposed of on 14.05.2015 with a direction to consider his claim in the light of the decision rendered in WPS No. 363 of 2015 (Amit Rao v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's representation was duly considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated 01.03.2016 in accordance with the Circular dated 30.01.1997 issued by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, which stipulates that an application for compassionate appointment is required to be submitted within one year from the date of death of the employee. He, therefore, submits that no case for interference is made out.

¶25

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

¶26

It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father died in harness in the year 1994. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner himself submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment only on 09.10.2014, nearly twenty years after the death of the deceased employee. The said application was considered by the

¶27

4

¶28

competent authority and rejected by a reasoned order dated 01.03.2016 on the ground that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under the Circular dated 30.01.1997 issued by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, which provides that a claim for compassionate appointment is required to be made within one year from the date of death of the employee.

¶29

The contention of the petitioner that his mother had submitted an application on 25.01.1995 cannot be accepted, as no document or other material has been placed on record to substantiate the said assertion. Mere pleading, in the absence of any supporting material, is insufficient to dislodge the findings recorded by the competent authority. Moreover, pursuant to the earlier direction issued by this Court in WPS No. 1866 of 2015, the respondents have already considered the petitioner's claim and passed a speaking order rejecting the same. Once the petitioner's claim has been duly considered and rejected by a reasoned order, no direction can be issued for reconsideration of the very same claim on the basis of an unsubstantiated plea.

¶30

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of public employment and is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee facing sudden financial hardship. A claim raised after nearly two decades defeats the very object of the scheme and cannot be entertained.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality or perversity

¶32

5

¶33

in the order dated 01.03.2016 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby

¶34

dismissed .

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶37

Jyoti

Animesh Singh Tomar v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Animesh Singh Tomar v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

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

Gaurav Pathak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aasharam Aditya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Premlal Ogare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Raut Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Paretkar Vs Manoj Kumar Pingua

K. Naveen Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh