0&6; Lgj HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition ts; No. 3279 of zoos Petitioner Smt. Sarita Shanna Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8r, another Post for Judgment 8; Order on 5551 of March, 2009. \ Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge z, 3.2009 / r if) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P. (S) No. 3279 of 2008 Petitioner Smt. Sarita Sharma, aged about 37 years, W/o Late Dinesh Kumar (Ex-Gunner 143961 1 1) (Ex~Constab1e Central Custom and Excise office Raipur), C/o Shri Parmanand Sharma, 340, FCI Colony, Changorabhata, Raipur - 492013 Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG) 2. Director, Directorate of Sainik Kalyan Chhattisgarh, near Collectorate, Raipur — 492001 (CG) Versus WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri V. G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Passed on this 5 ”Day of March, 2009) 1. The petitioner, by this petition impugns the order dated 15.3.2005 (Annexure P/9),’passed by the Director, Directorate, Sainik Welfare, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby the letters dated 10.3.2005 (Annexure P/5 ) and the letter dated 14.3.2005 (Annexure P/ 7 ) were cancelled. 2. Shri V. G. Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner was a member of Indian Army. During war practice he met with an accident and was discharged from Indian Army with a certificate that he is fit for civilian job. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the office of the Commissioner, Central Custom and Excise Duty, Raipur. During the service as 7"\\_\\\ Constable, the husband of the petitioner died on 11.8.2002. 2 WU The petitioner, being widow of ex-army personnel was advised by the District Sainik Welfare Office, Raipur by letter dated 4.11.2004 (Annexure P/ 1) t0 apply for employment in governmental or nongovernmental organizations, if she is interested. Thus, the petitioner made an application on 8.11.2004 (Annexure P/2) for appointment, mentioning her bio- data. The petitioner had also sent a request letter to His Excellency, Governor of Chhattisgarh, which was forwarded to the Director, District Sainik Board, Raipur by letter dated 20.1.2005 (Annexure P/3) for providing compassionate, appointment to the petitioner. Thereafter, by letter dated 1 4.3.2005 (Annexure P/4) the petitioner was called for interview on 7.3.2005. By order dated 10.3.2005 (Annexure P/5) the petitioner was temporarily appointed on the post of Chowkidar- cum—Farrash in the pay scale of Rs. 2550—55-2660-60—3200 and posted in the office of Directorate, Sainik Welfare Office, Raipur. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that as during the process of appointment the then Director tried to enrage the modesty of the petitioner, the petitioner sent a complaint (Annexure P/ 6) on 9.3.2005 [just one day before the date of appointment order) to the Secretary to the Governor. As the petitioner was terrified with the attitude of the then Director, she did not join on the post, thus by letter dated 14.3.2005 (Annexure P/7) the petitioner was directed to join on the post till 17*11 March, 2005, otherwise her appointment order dated 10.3.2005 would be cancelled. Having no other option to get the means for survival, the petitioner joined her duties on 15.3.2005 (Annexure P/8) and started working. The then M A AA #3 Director on 15.3.2005 itself again tried to enrage the modesty of the petitioner then she lodged an F.I.R. (Annexure P/ 10) in the Mahila Thana, Raipur. Having come to the knowledge of lodging of the F.I.R. the then Director immediately, on 15th March, 2005 (Annexure P/ 9) itself, cancelled the appointment order dated 10th March, 2005 (Annexure P/5) as well as the letter dated 14m March, 2005 (Annexure P/7) whereby the petitioner was directed to join till 17th March, 2005. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner concluded his argument submitting that the impugned order dated 15.3.2005 (Annexure P/9) is an outcome of malaflde intention. The termination order is bad in law, which has been passed without following the basic principles of natural justice. Shri Arun Sao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State opposed the petition submitting that th impugned order was rightly passed and no reasons 0r show cause notice was necessary, if the appointment on compassionate basis is cancelled. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. This is a case where the petitioner is the wife of a member of Indian Army, who was rendered, disqualified and unfit on account of accident while discharging his duties in the Indian Army. The Directorate of Sainik Kalyan has been created to look after the interest of the ex— army man, their children and widows, who died or were rendered disqualified in the course of discharging their duties in defending our country. It is true that it is a case of compassionate appointment but the purpose and \\\ e W/ object of compassionate appointment schcme is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member, who has served the State and dies while in service. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be cancelled by one stroke like the present one. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled without assigning any reason with one word that the appointment dated 10th March, 2005 and subsequent letter dated 14th March, 2005 may please be treated as cancelled. The petitioner has made several complaints of serious nature that the then Director tried to outrage the modesty of lady. It is a serious complaint. It is not clear asto whether any enquiry has been-done on such complaint. It appears that the impugned order of cancellation is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. In such a case where there are serious complaints, the principle of natural justice has to be followed. This Court in the mater of Ku. Punam 8s others Vs. State of C.G. 85 others {2008 (2) C.G.L.J. 366 } observedas under:- “21. Applying well settled principle of law to the facts of the cases, there is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principles of natural justice may not be required to be followed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is practically impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the event, of quashing of selection on account of irregularity committed on mass scale, or en—masse cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity of hearing.” w Having regard to the facts situation (Sf the case, enquiry was necessary Which was not done. Thus, the impugned order dated 15‘1“ March, 2005 (Annexure P/9) Natural consequences would follow The petition is allowed. However the respondents/authorltles may take steps, 1f so adv1sed after followmg the pr1nc1ples of natural Justlce No order deserves to be and is quashed. asto costs. x > Thakur SdL 'Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (