-1- 2025:CGHC:1335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 04/10/2024 Order delivered on 08/01/2025 WPS No. 1450 of 2022 1. Smt. Basanti Bharti W/o Late Shri Boondram Bharti Aged About 52 Years R/o Behind Tahsil Office, Ward No. 16, Pamgarh, Tahsil And Police Station Pamgarh, District-Janjgir Champa,Chhattisgarh. 2. Vikki Bharti S/o Late Shri Boondram Bharti Aged About 27 Years R/o Behind Tahsil Office, Ward No. 16, Pamgarh, Tahsil And Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home / Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur,Chhattisgarh. 2. Director General Of Police (Dgp), Police Headquarters, (Phq), Sector -19, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Digp) Administration, Police Headquarters, (Phq), Sector - 19, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,District-Raipur,Chhattisgarh. 4. Superintendent Of Police (Sp) Office Of Superintendent Of Police (Sp), Janjgir Champa, District-Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ______________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, PL. S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Order 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 27.11.2019 issued by respondent No.1 and also the letter dated 15.1.2020 issued by respondent No.4. -2- 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Boondram Bharti, husband of petitioner No.1and father of petitioner No.2, while working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Police Department, was compulsorily retired in public interest from service vide order dated 18.8.2017. Said order of compulsory retirement was put to challenge before respondent No.1. Representation submitted by said Boondram was allowed on 30.10.2018 and it was accordingly ordered that he be reinstated in service. While representation was pending consideration, said Boondram died on 9.10.2018. Petitioner No.2, son of deceased Boondram, submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment as there was an order of reinstatement of his father in service, he be granted compassionate appointment. However, said application was rejected on wrong pretext that on the date of death, father of petitioner No.2 was not in service, as per circular issued by the State Government, compassionate appointment can only be given to the family members of deceased employee who was in service on the date of death. He submits that once the compulsory retirement of father of petitioner No.2 is held to be bad in law and representation/appeal submitted by deceased employee was allowed, then it has to be treated that deceased employee on the date of his death was in service. Claim of petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be rejected only on technical ground considering that just a few days before passing of the order of reinstatement, concerned employee died. -3- 3. Learned State counsel opposing the submission made by counsel for petitioners, would submit that no interference is called for in the decision taken by the respondents. She further submits that father of petitioner No.2 was initially compulsory retired vide order dated 18.8.2017 invoking the provisions under Rule 56 (2) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 42 (1) (b) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Petitioner No.2’s father was compulsory retired after completion of 35 years and 3 months of service. The order of compulsory retirement was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition (S) No.48 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.5.2018 directing petitioner therein i.e. husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, to submit representation before the Committee constituted by the General Administrative Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh pursuant to circular dated 5.5.2018. After passing of order dated 17.5.2018, representation was submitted, but, before the representation could be considered and decided, Boondram Bharti (employee) died on 9.10.2018. As the Secretary, Department of Home / Police, Raipur, who considered and decided the representation, was not aware of the death of Boondram Bharti and therefore, allowed the representation on 30.10.2018 reinstating him in service. She submits that as deceased employee was not in service on the date of his death, therefore, his legal representatives are not entitled for benefit of compassionate appointment as claimed by them. -4- 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the document placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that Boondram Bharti, Assistant Sub-inspector was compulsory retired on 18.8.2017 under the provisions of Rule 56( 2) of Fundamental Rules r/w Rule 42 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and he was also paid three months’ salary in view of compulsory retirement. Copy of death certificate is enclosed as Annexure-P/2. In the said certificate, date of death of Boondram Bharti is mentioned as 9.10.2018. Annexure-P/3 is the order dated 30.10.2018, by which Boondram Bharti was ordered to be reinstated in service. 6. Petitioners in this petition are seeking quashment of the orders dated 27.11.2019 & 15.1.2020 whereby application submitted by them for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected and further prayed for relief that the Petitioner No.2 Vikki Bharti be given compassionate appointment on the post of Constable. 7. The State of Chhattisgarh from time to time has issued the Circular and directives governing the matters relating to grant of compassionate appointment to a legal representative of deceased employee. On the date of death of Boondram Bharti (compulsory retired employee of Police Department), the Consolidated Circular/Directives For Compassionate Appointment 2013 was in force. Clause-3 of said Circular of 2013 talks of ‘deceased Government servant’ and according to which, deceased government servant means a person who worked as a regular government servant or an employee of -5- Contingent Employees Work-charge Establishment on regular basis and died while in service. The Circular with respect to status of government servant on the date of death is specifically defined that deceased government employee means a regular government servant who died in harness. In the case at hand, admittedly on the date of death of deceased employee Late Boondram Bharti, his status was of a compulsory retired employee. His challenge to the order of compulsory retirement was pending consideration before competent authority. His appeal/representation was allowed and it was ordered for his reinstatement vide order dated 30.10.2018. This order is of State Government. He was reinstated in service on 30.10.2018 i.e. after about 20 days of his death. 8. Respondent/State has filed reply to the writ petition on 22.3.2022. In the reply, in para-2 they have pleaded that during pendency of representation, Boondram Bharti died on 9.10.2018 and after 21 days of his death on 30.10.2018. Respondent No.1/ Secretary, Department of Home / Police, Raipur issued an order reinstating the service of Boondram Bharti, however, there is no specific pleading as to whether the order of the appellate authority, who considered the representation/appeal and passed the order of reinstatement is further challenged and it was in any manner set aside or modified. In absence of any specific pleading, it is to be presumed that the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the State Government is still in force and has been acted upon. -6- 9. The application for grant of compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners were rejected only on the ground that on the date of death of Late Boondram Bharti i.e. 9.10.2018, he was a compulsory retired government servant and not in service. 10.From the facts as discussed above, it is apparent that legality and sustainability of the order of compulsory retirement of deceased employee dated 18.8.2017 was put to challenge before the competent authority by an employee and the competent authority had set aside the order of compulsory retirement for the reasons recorded therein and accordingly ordered for reinstatement of the employee. The compulsory retirement order is not outcome of the Departmental Enquiry, however, from perusal of the order Annexure-P/3, it is apparent that deceased employee was compulsory retired based on the Rules 56 (2) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 42 (1)(b) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which deal with the evaluation of an employee, who has completed 20 years of qualifying service or attained 50 years of age, whether he/she is suitable to continue in service further or not. 11.When once the order of compulsory retirement was put to challenge before the competent authority in the case herein before the Committee constituted for considering the representation against the order of compulsory retirement and the Committee has recommended for reconsideration of the case of Late Boondram Bharti and subsequently representation -7- was allowed directing for reinstatement of Late Boondram Bharti in service, it is to be treated that the employee Boondram Bharti was in continuous service in that period. 12.In view of the aforementioned facts of the case, when the legality and sustainability of the order of compulsory retirement is under consideration by the competent authority which ultimately culminated in favor of the employee and its effect is that the service of employee continued from the date of his original appointment. It is a case where the employee died during the period of continuation of his service, as per the order dated 30.10.2018, from the date of his appointment till he died. 13.The guidelines/circular issued by the State Government for grant of compassionate appointment only mentions that the deceased government servant means the regular government servant, who was in continuous government employment. The status of Boondram Bharti pursuant to the order dated 30.10.2018 would be a government servant in continuous employment from the date of his appointment till his death. 14.In case of Union of India and another vs. V.R. Tripathi, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 646, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “13. The policy of compassionate appointment is premised on the death of an employee while in harness. The death of an employee is liable to render the family in a position of financial hardship and need. Compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate the hardship that the family of a deceased employee may face upon premature death -8- while in service. Compassionate appointment, in other words, is not founded merely on parentage or descent, for public employment must be consistent with equality of opportunity which Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees. Hence, before a claim for compassionate appointment is asserted by the family of a deceased employee or is granted by the State, the employer must have rules or a scheme which envisage such appointment. It is in that sense that it is a trite principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. Even where there is a scheme of compassionate appointment, an application for engagement can only be considered in accordance with and subject to fulfilling the conditions of the rules or the scheme. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the Union of India by the learned Additional Solicitor General is premised on the basis that there is no right to compassionate appointment. There can be no doubt about the principle that there is no right as such to compassionate appointment but only an entitlement, where a scheme or rules envisaging it exist, to be considered in accordance with the provisions.” 15.Considering the entirety and facts and circumstances of the case and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the circular/directives of 2013 issued by the State Government for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent family members of the deceased employee, the decisions rejecting the claim of petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment is erroneous. 16.In the peculiar facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the respondents erred in rejecting the application on technical ground on 27.11.2019 &15.1.2020 observing that on the date of the death i.e. 9.10.2018 status of Late Boondram Bharti was of -9- the compulsory retirement government servant, hence, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the letter dated 27.11.2019 & 15.1.2020 are not sustainable and hence same are hereby quashed. 17.Respondents are directed to reconsider claim of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment treating Late Boondram Bharti to be the government servant on the date of his death pursuant to the order dated 30.10.2018 and to pass an order afresh subject to fulfillment of other conditions and parameters as provided under the consolidated guidelines/directives of 2013 for grant of compassionate appointment. 18.The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha/R SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI