CIVIL APPEAL None on 1 March 1979

^SSB\s':il•;i;-1 rw>\»

HIQH COURT OF CHtATTIBGARH : BIiASPXXR

SIBQLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI M&BiNDRA BSOHAH SHRiV^TAVA.

Wrifc Pefcitiott (8) No. 1S4S/2005

Viuod Sharnia

Versus

RSSPONDBNTS

State ofM.P. and 4 othei-s

Appearance: Shri Prafiiil Bharat, c-ounsel for the petitioner.Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advcrcate for fhe State.

ORAL ORDBR

(Passed ou 13tAprU 2010)

By this petitiou, fhe petitioner has assailed legality and validily of orderdated .19/02/1986 (Annexure A-8) by which sen/lces of his father wereterittuiated. The petitioner has also chailenged order dated 31/01/1996(AiiuexureA-7)by whlch his application for graat of compassioiiateappolntment has been rejected.

2. Pacts, briefly stated, are that tfae father ofthc petitioaer was appolatedas Gram Saliayak vide order dated 1/03/1979 (Annexure A-l) pursuaiit towhich Iie subimtted Iiis joining on 3/3/1979 (Annexure A-2).Due tosickuess, petitioner's father applied for graat ofearned leave frojii 7/7/81 to31/7/81.Afterrccoveiy,petiuonex''sfafher subuutted lus jolalagtorespondeut No.5 who dlrectedhimto report before respoudeat No.4whereupon respondent No.4 aUowed petitioners fatner to join servlce audposted 1iirn at Bhairauigarh District Bastar vide order dated 24/04/82.Thereafter, iiespondent No.5 aBowed father offhe petitioiier tojoui his duties.RespondeutNo.5videmeiaodated3/5/82(AanexureA-4$sought 4^~^^

iastructions floiu respoudeut No.4 regardlng regularizatioa of perlod ofabsence.It is the case of fhe petitioner that wlule la seivice nis fathef diedoii 20/10/85 as the petitioner was luinor at the time of death of liis father,afterattainingiuajority,aaapplicatiouforgrantof oompassionateappoluttaent was made vide AanexureA-6.In i-esponse to the saidapplication, an impugued order dated 31/01/96 was passed by respondentNo.3 rejectuig application 011 the gnouiid that the petitioner'a fafher wasteuainated fl-om servlce w.e.f. January 1981, vlde order dated 19/02/86. Onrepresentation inade on behalf of the petitioner, Additional Collector, Bastarvide Itis mem.o (Auuexuiie A-8) iafoitued fhat fbe petitioner could uot begranted coiupassionate appoiatment as hls fafher was tenaiuated from tusservices.

3. Learned counsel for tbe petitioner subjmlts that the rejection of ffaerepresentation on ffae grpuud fhat the father ofthe petitioner was teriuiuatedvlde order dated 19/02/86 is clearly JIlegal iu as inuch as ffae fafber offuepetitioiier died ou 20/10/ 1985 whereas the order of tei'uuuation was passedon 19/02/1986 w.e.f. Jaauaiy 1981. It is suumitted fhat as death had tekeuplace wliile he was In service, the petitioner was Uable to be consMered fercompassioaate appointmentAssaiUu^- the order of termiaation dated19/02/86, it has been subinitted fhat such an oxder was passed wifhoutgiviag proper oppoitunity to the father of the petitioner aud wlthout holdlnganv inquuy.It Is subinltted fhat such course of action was imperiiussibleunder law as period of long absenc-e could aot be made a gmiinS. fortenniuattou froiu the service. It is also lu^ed tfaat after the death offather offhe petitioner, no order ofternunation coiild be passed.

4. Per contra, submlsslon of the learned coiuisel lor fespouuents is fhatfhe instaat petition has been ffled for grant ofcojnpassionate appoiutment tofhe instaat petition has been ffled for grant ofcojnpassionate appoiutment to

which the petitioner is not eutiUed because the serviees of petitioner's fa.therwereterminatedaadthereforenoconsiuei'ationforcompassiouateappoiutrueut was made out.it is also argued fhat the petttioner coiild notclaim compassionate appointmeut 16 years after the death ofhis father. Thedeafhhastakenplaceon20/ 1G/' 1985whereasapplicatiouforcompassionate appoiatment was ffled iu fhe year 1996. It is also subuuttedfhat even fh.ough petitioner attained majority in the year 1992 as per his owastatement, he approached for grant of compassiouate appoiatuieat afteralmost 4 yeais and fherefore on this ground alonc petitioner is i-tot eutMed tocompassionate appolatuient as fhe very object and purpose of gi'autlagcompassionate appoiatmeiitto provide iinnicdiate r^Uef and succor to thefamily of ttie deceased employee.

5. In the petition, petitiojaer has stated himself to be 22 years of age inthe year 1997 when ttus petitiou was ffled. Thus, accordiBg to fhe petitionerhimself he bad attauied majorily ia the year 1992, fhere is B.O explaaatioawhat so ever by the petitioner as to why he did not apply for grant ofcoiupassiouate appointmeiit. In fhe entire petitioa, ttiere is ao avei'uxcnt thatthe oixler of termination dated 19/02/86 camie to the notice aud kaowledgeof the petitioner only upon. rejection of representation vj.de ordef dated31/1/96.lufact, order dated 31/1/96 was addressed to fhe mother of thepetitioner aad uot to the petitioner him.self. There 1s ao inaterial on record to•show that at the time of deatu of petitioner's father, except petitioner, thcrewas uo ottier eligible xneiaber includiag his motlier to seek compassionateappointment. There is no explauation what so ever as to why the order oftermination passed on 19/02/86 was not chatleuged earlier. Petitiouer hasaot eveu bi1ought on recoxd ffae relevant policy of coinpasslojaate appoiaUuentapplicable at the relevaut time to demonstiate that oa the date of death of lllpl«=*c fafher of fhe petitioner, as fhere was no eUgible meiuber in flie fauuly to seekcompassionate appoiatnaent aad uuder tbe policy he alone w^ cntitlcd toapply for coinpassionate appoiutBien.t,afi.er deafu of his fafher.Eveu afterattaiuing fliajorily, uo steps were taken for almost 4 years aud application forcompassionate appoiatuientwas made for the first tuue la fhe year 1996.

This Court is not iucliued to graat any benefit to the petitkiner inalalyfor fhe f.eason that when petitioner was minor, it has not beeu demonstiatedthat his raother was aot el^ible to take up compassionate appointruent orthat uuder fhe policy, petitiouer was entitled to claim after attainlag Utajorily.Further, even after attaiaiag niajority, delay iu approaching authorities toseek compassionate appointment 1s fatal to fhe case ofthe petitioner.

6. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar aud ofhers 2001(1)M.P.H.T. page 1, Supreme Court held -

' We are unatole to agree wltfa the subinisslons of fhe learnedsenior counsel for the petitioiier.Thia Couit has held in anuiaber of cases fhat compassionate appointment 1s inteudedto enable the famlly of fhe deceased eiaployee to tide oversudden crisis resultkLg due to deatii of the bread earner whohad left the fauuly in penuiy and wifhout auy ineans oflivelihood. In fact such a vlew has beeu expressed ia tfae veiydecision cited by the petitioner in Director qf Eduoatioii, Vs.PusS'ipertdra Kunwr (supra). it is also sign ificaat to notice fhaton. the date when fhe first application was maue by thepetitioner on 2-6-88, fhe petitioiier was a miuor axid was noteligible for appointmen.t. T'his is conceded by the petitioner.There canuot be reservation ofa vacancy tUl such tune as thepetltioner becom.es a major after a nuniber ofyears, unlessthereissouiespecificprovisions.Theveiybasisofcoinpassiouate appoiutment is to see fhat the famiiy getsiuuuediate relief. "

~

7. Iu view of the above, setUed legal position, petitioner is aot entitled toaay relief ia fhe petition. The petition 1s accordingly dismissed. There shaUbe no order as to cost.

Sd/-Manindra Mohan ShrivastavaJudge