• 'SESOBS HON'BLE H.P.STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TSIBUNAL BENCH ^L1"2^.M^J. ^p^^-isl^- Oriqinal Applicatioa No• APPLICANT 9 Cliait Rara Jhaap, Son of Shri Pati Rara uhanp, Resident of Village & Post KhokiyaKhar Police Statioii - Bagbahar, T<al-isil Patthalgaoa, District Raigarh (I'l.P.) VERSUS 1. State of I'l.P. Tiarough Secretary. School Eaucation De'partment E-Ilnistry of School 33di.tcatioa Deoartineat i-Iantralaya, Vallgbh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. Direc-tor, Pub-lic Xnstruction, Satp-lda Bhawan, Bhopal (M.p.) 3. Deputy Director, Educatioa,' Education District Dharamjaigarh, District Saigsxb (i'l.F.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, and Additioaal Director Public lastruction, Raigarh (M.P.) .,. NON-APPLICAITTS APPLICATION UNDSR SECTION 19 OF ADI-IItCTSTR&TIVE TRIBUSIAL ACT 1985 1. PAIlTICiJIAR OF APPLICAtn' &s above. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR imgle Bench: Hon'bieShn Manjndra Mohan Shrivastava. J. WRiT PETITION {S) ftiO.2888/2005 Chait Ram Jhanp Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others RESPQN&ENTS Shri Anupam Dubey, counssl for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on this 22"n day ofMarch, 2010) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. (2) The petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 28-07-1 %8 (Annexure A-4), by which, compassionate appointment earlier granted to the petitioner, has been cancelled. (3) Case of the petitioner is that upon death of his uncle-Dev Sai Jhanp on the basis of nomination on affidavit submitted by his Aunt, his case for grant of compassionate appointment was considered by the respondents under the government poiicy dated 10-06-1994 which ied to his appointment vide order dated 22-09-1995 (Annexure A-1) on compassionate basis. Though the petitioner continued in service without any complaint, he received notice on 04-03-1998 caliing upon him to submit his reply by statingthat his appointment was not in accordance with rules. Reply was submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure A-3 on 13-05-1998. The respondente,not satisfied with the reply, passed the impugned order dated 28-07-1998 (Annexure A-4), by which, services of the petitioner were terminated. Impugned order of termination stated that appointment of the petitioner was found to be contrary to circular dated 10- )9-1995. i -2.- (4) Learned counset for the petitioner contends that he was duly appointed on compassionate basis in accordance with the provisions contained in po!icy dated 10-06-1994. The nomination made by his Aunt was in accordance with the provisions contained in clause-17 of circular dated 10-06-1594. He further submits that the nomination was made on affidavit. Learned counsel argued that the circular dated 10-09-1995 was clarificatory in nature and the appointment of the petitioner was not in violation of any of the provisions contained therein but was passed in terms of the policy dated 10-06-1994 and 10-09-1995. He further submits that otherwise also impugned action of termination is in violation of principles of natural justice. Other submission is that the subsequent circular dated 10-09-1995 could not be made a basis as it wou!d not operate retrospectively. (5) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though initialiy compassionate appointment was granted to the petitioner, tater on, upon scrutiny with reference to clarificatory ciroutar dated 10-09-1995, it was found that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment as he was the nephew of the deceased government servant. It is also submitted that as per the records, no affidavit was submitted by widow-GomtiBai. It is argued that as compassionate appointment was granted without there being proper affidavit of the widow of the deceased govemment servant, even assuming that petitioner was eligible, he was not entitled for consideration. (6) I have given my anxious consideration to rival contentions made by ieamed counse! for the respective parties and perused the records. (7) A perusat of clause-17 of circular dated 10-06-1994 would show that where major son or daughter of the deceased government servant is not there to Jook after thewidow of the deceased government servant and the widow herself is not competent to take up employment, it would be open for the widow to nominate any reiative who would look after her. The said nomination is required to be made on affidavit. The subsequent circular issued on 10-09-1995 on!y clarified that in case wherethesons/daughters/dependants of the deceased are in employment, other relative wi!! not be entitled to compassionate appointment. From the return filed by the respondents, it is seen that the provisions contained in clarificatory circular dated 10-09-1995 were misinterpreted. Since.present iljl -iiiSs, -:1^ ^SSiQ ^y^J/ '(>«. '"°>•»'' Sfe B1*-"a% B •^- "•"'9^gssss^ was-'riot a case of nomination where sons/daughters or other dependants were already in government employment, it could not be said that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions ofthe circular dated 10-08-1985. The other submission made by learned counsel for the respondents is that the records did not reveal that the widow-Gomti Bai has submitted any affidavit. A categorical averment has been made in the petition that after death of Dev Sai Jhanp, uncle of the petitioner, petitioner's aunt has given anaffidavit. This Court vide its order dated 23-02-2010, directed the respondents/State to produce records referred to in para 6.6. (Written as 6.1) ofthe petition for perusal of the Court. When the case came up for hearing on 15-03-2010, again time was granted to produce relevant records as last opportunity making it ciear that non- production of records may result in drawing adverse inference. Even till date, no records have been placed before the Court. Even otherwise, though this ground has been taken in the return, no such basis has been indicated in the impugned order, by which petitioner's services were terminated. 1 am therefore unable to upho!d such objection of the respondents. (8) As an upshot of the above discussion, impugned order dated 28-07-1998 (Annexure A-4) is declared illegal and is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated inservice with all co.nsequential benefits. w-°*a s StffWastava