SAIYAD JAINULABEDIN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dtd. 25/6/2018 (Annexure P/1), whereby the application of the petitioners for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of delay.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that on 29/11/1984, Saiyad Sadik Ali, father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 was appointed on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and was posted at Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). On 7/2/2011, the father of petitioner No.1 left for heavenly abode leaving behind his wife, son and 05 daughters. On 1/3/2011, the petitioner No.2, wife of deceased employee Saiyad Sadik Ali, applied for employment assistance on compassionate ground vide Annexure P/2 for appointment of petitioner No.1 as other children (daughters) were minor except one but due to purdah system, her name was not suggested for employment as they were not allowed to work. The petitioner No.1, at the time of applying for compassionate appointment, was aged around 13 years and it was held by respondent No.2 by letter dtd. 6/7/2011 (Annexure P/3) that the petitioner No.1 is minor and therefore, the same was kept pending. After attaining the majority, the second application was filed for compassionate appointment and while considering the same, it was held that the petitioner No.1 is still minor and no post was lying vacant at Nagar Panchayat, Pali. Since the deceased employee was appointed at Katghora and petitioner No.1 was holding the origin of Katghora, on 13/4/2016 (Annexure P/4) the application was forwarded to respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 for consideration, however, despite sanctioned 59 posts and 01 vacant post at Municipal Corporation, Katghora, the case of the petitioner was kept pending even after attaining the majority and ultimately vide impugned order date 25/6/2018 (Annexure P/1), the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground of delay, leading to filing the instant petition seeking following relief(s) :-

(3.) It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing application for compassionate appointment by the petitioners, the case was forwarded to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for direction. On 20/2/2017, again a letter was forwarded to the respondent No.5 that 59 posts have been sanctioned for Municipal Corporation, Katghora and 1 post was lying vacant and direction was sought for considering the case of the petitioner No.1 but no action was taken. It was further submitted that on 25/4/2017, again a letter was forwarded to the Respondent No.5 for issuance of any direction but no action was taken. Despite obtaining the age of majority the petitioner No.1 could not get appointment and the same was kept pending since 27/2/2016 and ultimately passing the impugned order (Annexure P/1) rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.1 on the ground of delay is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. It has been also submitted by learned counsel that there was always indigent circumstances in the family on account of death of bread earner and no delay has been caused by the petitioner No.1. The second application by the petitioner No.1 was in continuation of the first application. The petitioner had been duly applying within the prescribed period but due to inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the case of the petitioner No.1 was kept pending, as such the impugned order has been passed without considering the aforesaid fact. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195, it was submitted that under the rules framed by the State Government no specific clause is framed with respect to relaxation of minors in case they have not attained majority for compassionate appointment and the petitioner No.1 being minor had applied for appointment within prescribed period and he had been suffering from continuous harness but the application was turned down on the ground of delay, which is at all not sustainable and liable to be set-aside directing the respondent authorities to give compassionate appointment.