»;^\ ....."&&^ ^--^^wy-^' ^ ii y »l£N ^ ^...--^""~ Cr'f-^\ _@^"____^ _._ INTHEHIGHCOURT OF GHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ W. P. fS) No^-S<S?/2008 /: Rajendra Prasad Kaiwarth S/o Late Ramlal R/o Madava Mahuva, Post Gopalpur Teh.-Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1. StateofC.G. Through- Secretary, Jan Shakti Niyojan Vibhag D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) /I. Deputy Director Employment Directorate-Employment and Training Raipur (C.G) ; 3. Employment Officer • ; Distt. Employment and selfEmployment CentreKorba(C.G) 111 li 1%! B WRITPETmONUNDERAKnGLES2260FTHE CONSTTTUnON OFINDIA -•——Earticulars of the Petitioner: 1.1 fSt^ (/' •^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HOIT^LESHRIJIANINDRAJUIOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Writ Petition (Sl No. 5887/2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Rajendra Prasad Kaiwarth Versus StateofC.G. SE others Petition u/A 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri S.P. Kale, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General along with Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 28.6.2010) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointirient has been rejected. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the death of late Shri Ram Lal, who died on 12.7.2007 while working as Peon in the respondents department, an application for grant of compassionate appointment was preferred, as there existed a policy of grant of compassionate appointment in the State. It is submitted that even though the application was proper in all forms and mother of the petitioner as well as brothers filed affidavit that they had no objection, petitioner being qualified, impugned order came to be passed, which does not contain any reason whatsoever. .-^^s -2- ^ ll¥s%>. .1 \ ^m'is. B $ 4. ^"'Ns^/ It is submitted that as the post of Assistant Grade-III is lying vacant, there was no hindrance in granting compassionate appointment to the peddoner and rejection of claim for compassionate appointment is irrational, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 3. Per contra, submission of leamed counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitied to compassionate appointment for the following reasons:- (a) in view of the Govt. Policy contained in paragraph -3 (8) of Circular dated 10th June, 2003, if there is any earning family member of the deceased-Govt. employee, no compassionate appointment shall be granted. Deceased-employee had 7 adult sons and they have been working in differentjobs. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled. (b) in view of Clause (8) of the Policy of compassionate appointa-nent (Annexure R-2), ifannual income exceeds 35,000/-, no compassionate appointment could be given and as the wife of the eraployee is getdng pension of Rs.3800/- per moth, petitioner is not entitled. (c) because as per Policy of compassionate appointment and Circular dated 10th June, 2003, where the Govt. servant dies after compledon of 25 years of service or 55 years of age, compassionate appointment would not be granted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. There is nothing on record placed by respondents to show that any of the members of the family was in any job or earning. Though it has been stated in the return, no documents have been filed to substantiate the same. It has been clearly stated in the petition that other members of the family are not employed elsewhere in Government or Non-Government Institutions. In this view of the matter, it was the burden on the part of respondents to establish that ^^.:^^,ili^^ ^ ff' .if°v''S ^' ^y' ^"""""^ "'^ ir>i '";; ''m: '"s&a '^ •s -3- ^"1 iy i any of the inembers of the family of deceased -Ramlal was in employment so as to disentitle the petitioner from grant of compassionate appointment. Further, in the absence of any finding in any enquiry by respondents or any documents, it is clear that afterthought reasons have been invented to resist the claim of the petitioner before this Court. ^ 6. The other reason to deny compassionate appointment, as stated in the retum, that as the widow of deceased-Ramlal is getting pension of Rs.3800/- per month, compassionate appointment could not be granted in view of provision contained in Clause (8) of the policy of compassionate appointment (AnnesiMre R-2), cannot be accepted as the said clause (8) of the Policy, clearly provides that while computing annual income, pension would be excluded. Therefore, submission that as the total amount of monthly pension received in one year exceeds 35,000/-, compassionate appointment could not be granted, tosay the least, is absolutely arbitrary and sans logic and reasoning. 7. Last and third reason to deny compassionate appointment, as stated in the return, is that in view of sub-clause 4 of Clause (12) of the Policy of compassionate appointment (Annexure R-2), petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment as father of the petitioner completed 4 1 years of service, as also age of 55 years, because at the time of his death his age was 61 years. A perusal of the said provision in Annexure R-2 shows that such "rule has been omitted, vide order dated 23.7.2003, as would be clear from the note appended to the Circular. 8. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court esu-lier on 28.1.2010, Shri V.V.S Murthy, learned Dy. Advocate General, placed before this Court Sv -4- '^ ^::.^"' •'lj-r".-" • . original records, containing the note sheets concerning consideration of application for compassionate appointment. Even froin the said order sheets, it is not reflected that any of the grounds which are now being raised before this Court for rejecting the claim of the petitioner were ever made basis to reject claim for coinpassionate appointment. On the contrary, it was found that certain clarifications were sought and finally, it was found to be a case of grant of compassionate appointment and it was proposed to issue proper orders. 9. From the aforesaid circumstances and material placed before this Court, it is more than clear that on non-existing grounds, petitioner was deprived of compassionate appointa-nent. Accordingly, impugned order dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) is declared illegal and is hereby set aside. 10. Respondents shall now consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders without further delay. 11. Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ie Praveen