VYASNARAYAN BANJARE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 18/2/2016 (Annexure P/1) whereby respondent No.4 rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment as being time barred.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petitions, are that the petitioner's father Shri Mangal Das Banjare who was working as Sahayak Antrik Lekha Parikshan and Kararopan Adhikari in Janpad Panchayat, Bhanupratappur, died in harness on 15/11/2013. Thereafter, on 22/6/2015 the petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment before the Director, Directorate of Panchayat and Social Services, Raipur vide Annexure P/2 which was forwarded to the Collector, Kanker through letter dtd. 24/11/2015 (Annexure P/3). However, as per the certificate issued by respondent No.3/CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bhanupratappur dtd. 26/11/2015 (Annexure P/4), though the petitioner was held to be entitled for compassionate appointment but it was mentioned therein that at present there is no vacant post in Janpad Panchayat, Bhanupratappur. Thereafter, the Additional Collector, North Bastar, Kanker issued a Memo dtd. 23/1/2016 (Annexure P/5) to respondent No.4/District Education Officer, South Bastar mentioning therein that as per clause 8(4) of the circular dtd. 14/6/2013 of General Administration Department of the State Government, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment on Class-IV post and hence, necessary action be taken in the matter. The Dy. Director, Panchayat, North Bastar through letter dtd. 21/1/2016 (Annexure P/7) directed the petitioner to submit consent of his family, affidavit and other necessary documents within a week so that further proceedings for his compassionate appointment on the post of peon could be done. However, on 18/2/2016 the impugned order was passed by respondent No.4 rejecting the application of the petitioner as being time barred. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is per se illegal and arbitrary, as such liable to be set aside. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 15/11/2013, he was the only earning member of the family; the petitioner was wholly dependent upon him and therefore, he submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment which was duly processed by the respondent authorities and he was held entitled for compassionate appointment, however, by the impugned order dtd. 18/2/2016 (Annexure P/1), his application was rejected on the ground of it being time barred whereas Clause 16 of the Circular dtd. 14/6/2013 provided limitation of three years in normal circumstances and five years under special circumstances for filing such application. As the petitioner filed application within three years from the date of death of his father, the same cannot be termed as time barred. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a stipulated time period.