GHANSHYAM KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s.

(2.) By this petition, this petitioner has sought following relief :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28/12/2014 and the petitioner being son of the deceased employee has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17/1/2015 subsequently on 29/8/2016, his application was dismissed on 2/7/2015 on the ground that in the family of the petitioner his brother is already in government service. The petition was filed against the said order bearing WPS No.3324 of 2016 on 28/7/2016. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government has framed amended policy for grant of compassionate appointment on 29/8/2016, according to which if anyone in the family member is a government servant than the person concerned will not be entitled to get compassionate appointment. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the earlier writ petition bearing WPS No. 3324/2016 (Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) was heard and the matter was remanded back to the authorities concerned to explore the dependency and also to see whether the brother is giving assistance to the petitioner or not. Subsequently, on 21/9/2021 the respondent authorities have dismissed the case of the petitioner on the ground that one of the family members i.e. his brother is in government service. As such, the petitioner cannot be granted compassionate appointment. The petitioner has filed another petition bearing WPS No.5857/2021, challenging and questioning the order dtd. 21/9/2021 the matter was again remanded back by this Court for considering the aspects it was found by this Court that the respondent authorities have not conducted proper enquiry in order to determine whether the petitioner was dependent upon the deceased employee or not and whether the brothers are giving assistance or not. The State Government went before the Division Bench by filing a writ appeal against the said order of remand. The writ appeal was partly allowed in favour of the petitioner while remanding back the matter which is the present matter, as such the petitioner is praying that since the ground for dismissal of compassionate appointment is not in accordance with law, as at the time of death of the deceased employee, the policy for compassionate appointment debarring the petitioner, in case one of the family members are in government servant is not in existence and as such the respondent authorities have committed illegality while dismissing the petition for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that one of the family members are in government service. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.5077 of 2017 (Naresh Kumar Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Vide order dtd. 25/9/2017 it was held that while framing a question in para-1 and it has been dealt in para-5 stating that since the circular was not in existence and was not in force at the time of death of the petitioner as such, the benefit of said circular would not be given to the respondents and the case of the petitioner would be considered on some different aspect and not on the basis of circular issued in the year 2016. In the earlier circular dtd. 14/6/2013, it was not the condition precedent that if any family members are in government service than the petitioner would not be given compassionate appointment. On the contrary there is condition that the dependent of deceased employee would be given compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Shushma Gosai and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (1989) IV SCC 468. According to the petitioner that the circulars are required to be seen in prospective manner. They cannot be taken into consideration in retrospective manner, when the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28/12/2014, the circular pertaining to year 2016 was not in existence in which it has been stated that the person concerned will not be given compassionate appointment, if one of the family member is a government servant. As such, this ground cannot be taken by the respondent authorities and only on the basis of dependency the petitioner can be granted compassionate appointment.