PRAHALLAD MOHANTY Vs. D G P CRPF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by means of this writ petition, seek to quash letter dated 05.01.2010 in Annexure-4 issued by opposite party no.1-Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), New Delhi, as well as letter dated 20.01.2010 in Annexure-6 issued by opposite party no.3- Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Bhubaneswar, by which the application submitted for compassionate appointment has not been entertained in view of completion of five years of invalidation of the Government servant on medical ground.

(2.) The epitome of the facts leading to filing of this writ petition, in a nutshell, is that petitioner no.1 was continuing as a Cook in CRPF, Group Centre, Bhubaneswar. While so working, he suffered from Schizophrenia. After a lot of treatment, when his condition was not developed, he was examined by the medical board. After thorough examination, the medical board found him unfit to perform the duty and recommended for invalidation vide report dated 25.05.2004. On the basis of such recommendation, petitioner no.1, being unfit to discharge his duty as a Cook, was struck off from service w.e.f. 02.07.2004, vide office order dated 02.07.2004 issued by the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar. Consequentially, he was directed to submit the relevant papers/documents for payment of his risk fund amount. On submission of the same, the amount was duly paid to him by the authority. By the time petitioner no.1 was struck off from service on 02.07.2004, petitioner no.2 the son of petitioner no.1 was minor. Therefore, he could not apply for compassionate appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme nor the wife of petitioner no.1 could apply as she had to take his care. When petitioner no.2 was continuing his +2 Second Year Arts, he became major and filed an application for compassionate appointment on 17.12.2009, his date of birth being 05.06.1993. But the opposite parties, without taking into consideration the miseries faced by the family, after the name of petitioner no.1, who was the sole bread winner of the family, was struck off from service, rejected the application on 05.01.2010 on the ground that the application was filed beyond the limitation period of five years. Thereafter, the petitioners filed another representation on the very same day citing an example where the dependant son of late Mohan Singh, Constable Force No.801261261, who had been serving in F/52 Bn. CRPF and expired on 18.05.1985 had applied in 2004 and got a job on compassionate ground. In spite of standing order of 05 of 2001, even such representation was rejected on the very same ground stating that the application for compassionate appointment filed by the Government servant invalidated out of medical ground is not entertained after completion of five years, pursuant to letter dated 20.01.2010. Hence this application.

(3.) Mr. B. Senapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that petitioner no.1, after declared invalidated on medical ground and struck off from service, was getting pension of Rs.1,915/- per month, which was even insufficient for medical expenses. The family was in distress condition with effect from 2004 and the same condition is also continuing till date because of meager amount of pension. It is further contended that the sole ground on which the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the authority is that in case of struck off of the name of an employee from service due to medical invalidation, the application for compassionate appointment was to be filed within five years, but while rejecting such application the basic ground reality has not been taken into consideration. Meaning thereby, by the time the name of petitioner no.1 was struck off from service on 02.07.2004, petitioner no.2 was a minor and as such, the wife of the petitioner could not make any application as she was taking care of petitioner no.1. The moment petitioner no.2 became major, he filed an application for compassionate appointment but the authority rejected the same on a ground which is not legally tenable. It is further contended that when in a case of death of an employee in the year 1985, compassionate appointment has been considered in the year 2004, that is to say after 19 years, non-applicable of the same analogy to the present case amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the limitation of five years provided in Clause-VI (h) of the Standing Order in the cases of invalidation and prescription of no limitation for death cases is discriminatory and violates Articles-14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and should be ignored. Therefore, the opposite parties may be directed to accept the application of the petitioners and consider the case of petitioner no.2 for compassionate appointment. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education , 2001 8 SCC 676 and Lata Naik v. State of Odisha,2018 OLR 652.