LAXMIKANT PATEL 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. 15/12/2015 (Annexure P/1) whereby respondent No.2 refused to reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petitions, are that the petitioner's father Nandlal Patel who was working as Head Master, Grade-II, died in harness on 8/11/2014. After his death, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment which was forwarded by the Block Education Officer, Kharsia to the competent authority Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Raigarh vide letter dtd. 15/12/2014. Through letter dtd. 31/12/2014 (Annexure P/2) the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare informed the Block Education Officer, Kharsia that he is satisfied with the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment but an affidavit is required to be filed by the petitioner. The Block Education Officer was directed to give his report after examination of application of the petitioner. Accordingly, after obtaining affidavit of the petitioner, the Block Education Officer forwarded the application of the petitioner again to the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dtd. 13/1/2015 (Annexure P/3). However, the Assistant Commissioner through letter dtd. 21/1/2015 informed the Block Education Officer that since brother of the petitioner is in government service, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother approached respondent No.1/Secretary, Department of School Education and on the direction of the Secretary, the petitioner's case was reconsidered. The petitioner submitted application afresh on 30/11/2015 along with certificate issued by the Sarpanch and affidavits of his family members to the effect that his brother is living separately and entire responsibility is now on the shoulders of the petitioner, but yet again his application was rejected by the impugned order dtd. 15/12/2015 (Annexure P/1). 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. Respondent No.2 cannot deny the petitioner compassionate appointment upon extraneous consideration and irrelevant facts. After death of his father, the petitioner and his family are facing severe financial hardship. The petitioner's case is governed by the policy dtd. 14/6/2013 which do not contain any prohibition for appointment on compassionate ground when any other family member is in government service. Even otherwise, the petitioner along with his application had submitted the certificate issued by the Sarpanch and affidavits of his family members to the effect that his brother is living separately and entire responsibility is now on the shoulders of the petitioner, but the same has not been considered by the respondents. Hence the impugned order being bad in law is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be held entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209; Canara Bank Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, AIR 2015 SC 241; order dtd. 26/10/2015 of this Court in the matters of Swatantra Ratna Panigrahi Vs. State of CG and others, WPS No.633/2015 and NC Santosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617.