y t? .^f^. -^i^ ^.•'- .?y;^ ^•" £L£^mfn b (L^ f o-^7, IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. Petitioner )2-iJ /201° Dhirendra Kumar Banjare aged about 24 years, S/o Late Bhajanlal Banjare, R/o Village Bargaon, Post Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa Versus Respondents 1 2 3. 4. The State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Transport Department, D.K. S. Bhawan, Ra'ipur Regiona) Transport Officer, Raipur Transport Commissioner, Raipur Account Officer, Transport Department, Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^s\. <1;^'^^:%1> 1 "1"'" . '^ "i'.^;-».^T'^&^ ^ c/'i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 1211 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Dhirendra Kumar Banjare State of Chhattisgarh and others l^ Shri Parag Kotecha counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi P.L. forthe respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (02.11.2011) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.1.2010 (Annexure P-8) issued from the office of Transport Commissioner, Raipur rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief are that his father namely Bhajanlal Banjare who was working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of respondent No.2 died on 9.5.2003 and immediately after his death, the petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment but it was not considered though several correspondences were made by the State authorities in this regard. All this compelled the petitioner to file W.P. (S) No. 5468/2009 before this Court and it is only after the order pa'ssed by this Court on 24.9.2009 vide Annexure P-6, the impugned order came to be issued. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been issued ignoring the correct factual position and though as per this order the petitioner had submitted his application six months after the death of his father whereas from the document of Annexure P-2, it appears that the application wassubmitted within time. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that subsequent application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner after passing the Higher Secondary School . \. SBSS !'tsate. ' <:^ii^^" Examination in the year 2006 but the respondents were under obligation to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the basis of whatever qualification he was having at the time of submitting initial application. According to the counsel for the petitioner, on 6.7.2007 vide Annexure P-5 the respondents had un-necessarily asked the petitioner to submit the certificate of 25 w.p.m. Hindi typing examination as well as one year Data Entry/Programming certificate of any institution recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh. According to him, the respondents should not have asked the petitioner to submit all these certificates for the purpose of compassionate appointment and he should have been appointed on the basis of whatever qualification he was having. Counsel for the petitioner furi:her submits that once the new documents have been sought from the petitioner on 6.7.2007, it means that the respondents have waived their earlier condition of submitting the documents of Hijgher Secondary School Examination. 4. Replying to the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted by the State counsel that the petitioner has failed to furnish the relevant documents in respect of his qualification and therefore the respondents are fully justified in rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment. He submits that while disposing of W.P. (S) 5468/2009, in paragraph No.2 of its order this Court made it clear that in the event of non-furnishing of the relevant documents sought for by the authorities, the petitioner would have no right for want of supply of the necessary documents/information, as required by the authohties, and accordingly the respondents are fully justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. From letter dated 30.1.2004 (Annexure P-2) it appears that some application was made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment but as it was not as per the requirement of the policy of the Government, petitioner was asked to submit the same in a proper manner. On 28.10.2005 another letter was issued by the Assistant Transport . L -^s—^ Commissioner to RTO, Raipur endorsing its copy to the petitioner also, seeking the particulars of the petitioner. In the said letter it was specifically mentioned for the petitioner to appear before the authorities and submit proper application, failing which it would be presumed that he was not interested for compassionate appointment. On 9.11.2005 another letter was issued to the petitioner from the office of RTO, Raipur asking him to submit his application duly supported by the relevant documents and appear in the office of Transport Commissioner, Raipur. By the said letter, the petitioner was also asked that if the compassionate appointment was not possible in the transport department, would he agree to become Shiksha Karmi Grade III. On 24.7.2006 vide Annexure P-5 the petitioner was further asked to submit all the relevant documents so that his case for compassionate appointment could be processed. Furi:her on 9.2.2007 a reminder was sent to the petitioner for furnishing. the relevant documents for the post of AG-111 and it was also made clear that if these documents were not submitted immediately, process would start in his case. On 9.3.2007 yet another letter was issued by the RTO Raipur asking the petitioner to submit the relevant documents. It appears that in between 9.3.2007 and 21.5.2007, the petitioner furnished the relevant documents to the RTO, Raipur who in turn forwarded the same to the Transport Commissioner, Raipur on 21.5.2007. On 6.7.2007 yet another letter was issued by the Assistant Transport Commissioner informing the petitioner about the requisite qualification for the post of AG-111. By this letter, the petitioner was also asked to submit the certificate of Hindi Typing Examination and that of Data Entry/Programming from any institution recognized by the State Government of Chhattisgarh. From another letter dated 11.9.2007 issued by RTO, Raipur, it appears that the petitioner submitted all the documents as sought for in between 6.7.2007 and 11.9.2007 which were forwarded to the Transport Commissioner. From the record, it also appears that the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court (WPS 5468/2009) which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of documents submitted by him. After the order of this Court was passed, case of the petitioner appears to have been considered rejecting his claim ^h -Q- for compassionate appointment by the o.rder impugned on following two grounds: i) That the petitioner did not submit his application for compassionate appointment within six months from the date of death of his father, and II) That he did not possess the requisite qualification for thepostofAG III. 7. It appears that at the time of disposal of WP (S) No. 5468/2009 the petitioner submitted before this Court that he had filed all the documents before the authorities pursuant to the letters dated 28.10.2005, 9.11.2005, 24.7.2006, 9.2.2007, 9.3.2007, 21.5.2007, 6.7.2007 and 1.9.2007 but the submission so made appears to be incorrect as till 9.3.2007 (page 14 of the writ petition) the petitioner had not submitted the relevant documerit. It is further clear from the letter 21.5.2007 of the RTO, Raipur (page 15 of the writ petition) that the petitioner had submitted the relevant document to the authorities in between 9.3.2007 and 21.5.2007. Moreover, the petitioner has not filed any document before this Court showing the fact that he had submitted all the relevant documents before the authorities prior to 9.3.2007. Petitioner has also failed to file the application said to be made by him seeking compassionate appointment. He has also not made it clear as to when and for what post he had made the application. While passing the order dated 24.9.2009 it was made clear by this Court that if the petitioner did not supply the relevant information within time, he would not have any right for wgnt of supply of necessary documents/information as required by the authorities. It appears that the petitioner has not given the correct information either in WPS 5468/2009 or in the present one. Had the petitioner supplied all the relevant documents to the authorities before 9.3.2007, he must have been in possession of the same. Further, according to the affidavit ofthe petitioner which was sworn on 11.3.2010, on that day he was aged about 24 years and thus on 9.5.2003 he must be a young boy of 17 years. This apart, as the petitionerhas passed his Higher Secondary School Examination in the year 2006, question of supplying the relevant document regarding his educational qualification prior to 2006, does not arise especially when he hadapplied for the post of AG-111. ^- 8. This Court finds no force in the argument of the petitioner that he had applied for compassionate appointment within six months from the date of death of his father. Though from the letter dated 30.1.2004 (Annexure P-2) it appears that some application was made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment but on 30.1.2004 he was asked to file proper application in two sets which was never submitted by him till 9.3.2007. From the correspondence made by the State authorities it is apparent that the petitioner had not submitted the relevant information sought for by the authorities and therefore it cannot be said that the authorities were at fault and that the petitioner had submitted the application in prescribed form as per the policy of the State Government vide Annexure R-1 with all the required documents within six months from the date of death of his father. 9. It is a settled legal position that public employment is considered to be a wealth. It, in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. 10. Moreover, looking to long survival of the petitioner's family even in the absence of compassionate appointment and the fact that the wife of the deceased employee must be receiving pension, the petitioner has no case to get compassionate appointment as the sole object behind giving the same is to meet the immediate hardship being faced by the dependants of the deceased employee, which is not at all reflected in this case. 10. Thus in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, petitioner has absolutely no case for compassionate appointment and accordingly the petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as'such. g^ Pritinker Diwakar Judge ||i]piii^7nai-B