Case Law Details
Application for compassionate appointment filed by the dependent of a Government servant who died prior to 1-11-1997 cannot be considered by the Government of Chhattisgarh in view of policy decision of the State Government.
1. Petitioner’s father Shri Ram Nihora Das Manikpuri, while working as Head Master in the Government Primary School, Kharkhatta, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha), died in harness on 7-6-1996. The petitioner was minor at that time therefore he could not make application for compassionate appointment. He became major and filed application for compassionate appointment on 17-5-2000. The said application has been rejected by the District Education Officer, Kabirdham by order dated 11-8-2003 holding that the petitioner’s father died prior to reorganisation of the State i.e. 1-11-2000 and the petitioner is able to maintain his family from the date of death of his father till this date therefore he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Feeling aggrieved against the order rejecting his case for compassionate appointment, the instant writ petition has been filed stating that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment and his application has illegally been rejected by the District Education Officer, Kabirdham.
2. Return has been filed by the State of Chhattisgarh / respondents No.1, 4 and 5 stating that the petitioner’s case has been considered in accordance with law and also in accordance with the circular dated 1-5-2000 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh and since the petitioner’s case relates to prior to 1-11-2000, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered for appointment in the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore his application for compassionate appointment is liable to be rejected and was accordingly rejected.
3. Mrs. Meena Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner’s case has not been considered in accordance with law in force and his application has been rejected merely because the circular dated 1-5-2000 is not applicable, however, the circular existing at the time of death of the petitioner’s father in the year 1996 would be applicable for consideration of the petitioner’s case for appointment. The order passed by the District Education Officer is ex facie illegal and therefore it cannot be maintained and it be set aside, and the District Education Officer be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and grant compassionate appointment to him.
4. Mrs. Astha Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh / respondents No. 1, 4 and 5, would submit that the petitioner’s father died on 7-6- 1996, at that time, the petitioner was major and post cannot be kept vacant for an indefinitely long time. The Government has taken a policy decision not to consider the cases prior to 1-11-2000 therefore his case for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
