r, <...-<* IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(s) N0. ,5J7€ OF 2010 PETITIONER v^ '•^ •' ° . ,^. ^' .a&- ^ks^c ^4^'"" ^ ^ -*^ .^" RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 3 Akash Mishra, S/o ,Shri Late Nand Kumar Mishra, Aged about 20 years, R/o Tamrakarpara, Near Old Tehsil Office, Dhamdha, District Durg (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, General: Administration Department, DKS Bhawan, . Mantraiaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Directcr, Girectorate of Panchayat Avam Samaj Seva, DKS Bhawan, Hantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Dy. Director, Department of Panchayat Avam Samaj Kalyan, District Durg (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 3976 OF 2010 Petitioner Versus Respondents Akash Mishra State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 20th day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07/01/2010 (Annexure P/4) whereby the application of the petitioner for consideration for appointment on the basis of compassionate appointment, was rejected on the ground that the application was preferred after six months of death ofthe deceased employee. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner namely Late Nand Kumar Mishra while working as Assistant Antrik Lekha Prikshan Avam Kararopan Adhikari/ Assistant Gram Panchayat Officer djed in harness on 22/11/2006 at the age of 56 years. Thereafter, the petitioner immediateiy made an application within a period of six months on 03/01/2007 (Annexure P/1) stating clearly his date of birth as 14/10/1990. The application of the petitioner v/as not considered immediately. However, by order dated 22/09/2009 (Annexure P/2). The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not major on the date of making application, though on the date of rejection ofapplication, the petitioner was more than 18 years. 3. Thereafter, immediately one more application was made on 27/10/2009 (Annexure P/3) which was also rejected by the impugned order dated 07/01/2010 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that the same was not filed by the petitioner within time i.e. six months from the date ofdeath ofthe deceased employee. 4. Ms. Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner has attained. majority before rejection of the first /!ff\ ff'!f"~"'c-. . '<; ?: ®...,.f..,-l. i ^^'^^ \ j 'S 3 '^wa^ 6. 7. 2 application, the rejection was bad in law, as on the date of rejection of the application, the petitioner has already attained majority and became eligible for consideration for appointment on compassionate basis. Immediately, second application was moved which was wrongly rejected on the ground that it was filed after a period of six months from the date of death of the deceased employee. Learned counsel further submits that once an application was kept pending, the authorities should have considered the age of the petitioner before rejecting the same. Thus, the first order dated 27/10/2009 & subsequently second order dated 07/01/2010 are bad in law and deserve to be quashed. Ms. Mirza, in support of her contention,relies on the decision passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Syecf Khadim Hussain v. State ofBihar and Others is as under:- "5. We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State. In the instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and 'without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13years' old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18 years and'he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provisions as to what would be done in case the dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application." Shri Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that the respondent authorities kept application pending consideration for two years to find out the vacancy and to consider other aspects. In respect of the second rejection order dated 07/01/2010, learned counsel submits that the second application was filed after six months. Thus, the same was rejected. 1 have heard learnedcounsel appearing for the part:ies, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. (2006)93cc 195 T'rKII11""]""!'"""""!.;' s^ •..•'-r:E^,-^ '^. ^, .•^^'s^. 'i t,^ 3 8. It is evident that the application was kept pending and during pendency of the application, the petitioner attained majority, the same could not have been rejected on the ground that on the date of making application, the petitioner was not major. This is not a case where the age and qualification has been fixed in the adveri:isement for selection in regular course of employment. The consideration for grant of compassionate appointment is altogether different. The facts of the case are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain (supra) where the facts are almost same. 9. The whole object of any compassionateappointment schemes is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the ultimately demise of its sold earning members (See: Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh ). 10. Having heard to the facts as afore-stated, the order of rejection of the application was bad and deserves to be quashed. Thus, no further order is necessary and even if the application has been filed, the same could not have been rejected without considering facts of earlier application filed within prescribed period ofsix months. 11. It appears that the order has been passed in a cryptic and casuai manner without examining first application in time which was rejected without giving any sufficient reasons. 12. In view of the above, the orders dated 27/10/2009 (Annexure P/3) & 07/01/2010 (Annexure P/4) are quashed. However, the respondent authorities is directed to consider the applications dated 3-1-2007 & 27-10-2009 filed by the petitioner, treating the same within time in accordance with law on its own merits expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from receipt of copy of this order. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. _ _ _ _ - _- - - - - -—— Sd/- Sadsh K. Agnihotri Judge Arun (1997)83cc85