^ t\^yf }^^^ ^ 5 S^S^-^S: .^~^^ wo"""""""""^.....t3.../»e^tt "^j(0/-^ <P^' ( R.toA.R.I^. Amended Writ Petition IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. 926/2006 PETITIONER : Sajeev Kumar Patila S/o. Late Shri Ganesh Ram Patila, aged about 24 years, R/o. Village Paneka, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Division Forest .Officer, Division Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. State of Madhya Pradesh Through:- Secretary, Forest Department, Balabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) o' l/'/n & ^> ^^ cy WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDJA r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Writ Petition No.926 of 2006 °1 Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Patila Respondents Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /^-2-20T6---- — Hpn'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. T Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Post for pronouncement of the order on IS -2-2010 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HFGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR cf' Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Writ Petition No.926 of 2006 Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Patila Respondents Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Present:- Shri Anup Mazumdar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Amrito Das, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Delivered on this t6Sa\i of February, 2010) Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J, 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "a) It is therefore prayed that the respondent authorities may be directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the posts available in the department or other department. b) That, the compassionate appointment policy creating restrictions for giving the appointment to the dependent only in the cases where deceased employee has expired after 1-11-2002 and not relax the condition after 1-11-1997 may kindly be set aside/quashed. c) Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. d) That, the compassionate appointment policy dated 2-2-2006 (Annexure - P/9) for considering the 1 1t?fc 2 appointments from 1-11-1997 to 31-10-2000 and not considering the cases of employees who died prior to 1-11-1997 may be declared as discriminatory and illegal and may be setaside/quashed." 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the father of the petitioner namely; Ganesh Ram Patila working as Forest Guard in the respondent Department, died on 5-8-1993 in harness. Thereafter, op attaining the age of majority the petitioner submitted an application dated 15-12-1999, but the same was not considered by the authorities. Therefore, again the petitioner made an application dated 22-1-2000 (Annexure - P/2), which was duly recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer. Thereafter, by letter dated 23-6-2005 (Annexure - P/7) the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, intimated the petitioner that he is not entitled to compassionate appointment on the ground that his father died much prior to formation of the State of Chhattisgarh i.e. 1-11-2000. / Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the'petitioner, would submit that State Government by its circular dated 2-2-2006 given benefit for grant of compassionate appointment to those dependants of the deceased employees who had died between 1-11-1997 to 31-10-2000, in harness. Tbe father of the petitioner died much prior to the cut off date i.e. 1-1,1-1997. The fixation of cut off date only up to 1-11-1997 and not before that date is not at all sustainable and the circular dated 2-2-2006 is illegal, arbitrary and the same may be quashed. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner and his family members have been ticing a lot of financial difficulties, as they have no source .of income for their livelihood. / .^^ -£^' \o1 L 6. On the other hand, Shri Das, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would submit that after appreciating the case of the petitioner on its own perspective, rightly rejected his application. Even otherwise, as per the circular dated 2-2-2006 the application for grant of compassionate appointment has to be madewithin six months from the date of circular, wherein the employee had died between 1-11-1997 and 31-10-2000. In the case on hand, the employee died on 5-8-1993, much prior to 1-11-1997. In para 2 of the additional return it has been contended by the State that the circular dated 2-2-2006 has been issued by the State Government in view of order passed by this Court on 20-12-2005 in W.P.No.1322 of 2002 (Anoop Mishra v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others). The cut off date has to be fixed in such type of matters, which cannot be branded as discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. The challenge of the petitioner to the circular dated 2-2-2006 is absolutely baseless and frivolous. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the circular dated 2-2-2006 with regard to compassionate appointment on the basis of cut off date i.e. 1-11-1997 has been considered and approved by this Court in a catena of decisions. Clause 3 (9) 3 of the circular dated 2-2-2006 very specifically provides that i^ f^pfc sii^-i IRT fepra ^W^ •^f, ^ l[RcTR c^ anfttf OTff W^V ^fSii ^f t^ fero? ^ 6 'ng ci?t WPI ^fftr ^ iftcR !R^T Rsn' uIT TO5^T t 1 ^T W ^ ^ qWIcT ff^T sn^r ira fNr? '?tTq ^ ^PTT 1 Thus, the ground of rejection does not seem to be illegal or improper. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a ^Q-T^ 'e,*. .<£-.. facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. 7. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes 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 members." 8. In State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin the Supreme Court, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, observed as under: "11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1989 (4) SCC 468) it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread- earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of India and ors. (1991 Supp (2) SCC 689) and Union of India and ors. v. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476). In Director of Education ' (1997)88cc 85 2AIR2003SCW4339 \o5 -e- 9. <to a» (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra ; Kumar and Ors. (1998 (5) SCC 192) it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred bythe main provision." The Supreme Court in State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed nflir , in para 1 1 has held as under: "11.......it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and complete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived arid substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show 2006 (5) SCC 766 \eA^ te. <£ favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution." 10. The petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the circular dated 2-2-2006, wherein it has been provided that the dependant members of the deceased employee who had died between 1-11-1997 to 31-10-2000 may apply for compassionate appointment within a period of six months on the ground that the same is unreasonable. The petitioner has not questioned the validity of the compassionate policy/circular dated 2-2-2006 on any other grounds e.g. it is violative of constitutional provisions or any other provisions of statutory rules, regulations or against the public policy. The cut off date should have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 11. The Supreme Court in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Another , observed as under: "29. "State" is entitled to fix a cut-off date. Such a decision can be struck down only when it is arbitrary. Its invalidation may also depend upon the question as to whether it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 2-5-1997 was the date fixed as the cut-off date in terms of the Scheme. The reason assigned therefor was that this was the date when this Court directed the appellants to consider framing of a regularisation scheme. They could have picked up any other date. They could have even picked up the date of the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. As rightly contended by Mr Patwalia, by choosing 2-5-1997 as the cut-off date, no illegality was committed. Ex facie, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. (2009) 3 SCC 35 c\ 1 ^v"y: ^QS^^ 1&5. •(a (^ 30. ......The Court's power of judicial review in this behalf although exists but is limited in the sense that the impugned action can be struck down only when it is found to be arbitrary. It is possible that by reason of such a cut-off date an employee misses his chance very narrowly. Such hazards would be there in all the services. Only because it causes hardship to a few persons or a section of the employees may not by itself be a good ground for directing fixation of another cut-off date." 12. Keeping in view the object of the compassionate appointment to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family and to redeem the family in distress, the compassionate appointment policy is beneficial policy. 13. With regard to fixing of the cut off date, it appears to be logical and reasonable that the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out on 1-11-2000. It must have been thought by the Government to provide relief to the dependants of the employees who died three years before carving out of the State of Chhattisgarh i.e. from 1-11-1997. The object appearsto be reasonable. Thus, the cut-off date fixed by the respondent/State is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. If the petitioner misses the chance of making an application for consideration of his appointment on compassionate basis that may not be the ground for holding the cut-off date of the policy as unreasonable. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the.petitioner that the circular has no relationship with the object sought to be achieved, is noticed to be dismissed on the above stated grounds. If the purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family and to redeem the family in distress a person who had died before 1-11-1997 even otherwise cannot be granted the benefit, as the compassionate ^ s ^ TJ.! "%.. '%>;'-<•" J? c. ^- appointment has been held that it is inconsonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. {See Sajad Ahmed Mir (supra)}. This is an exception and amounts to back door entry, as the appointment on compassionate basis is de hors the constitutional scheme of employment without permitting the other eligible candidates to participate in the selection process for appointment to a public post. 15. Applying well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, when the family members of the deceased employee had survived for more than 15 years after the death of deceased employee on 5-8-1993 and the reasons for compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial problem of the deceased employee, but not to provide employment on compassionate basis de hors the constitutional scheme of employment, the policy dated 2-2-2006 is reasonable and does not warrant any interference of this Court. There is no merit in this petition. 16. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 17. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- satishK.Agni^n ie Gowri Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge