-1- 2025:CGHC:9018 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3605 of 2018 Jagdish Chouhan S/o Late Shri Anil Chouhan, Aged About 27 Years R/o Shanichari Padav, Harijan Mohalla, Ward No. 26, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondent(s) with WPS No. 3606 of 2018 Mohan Lal S/o Late Shri Horilal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Shanichari Padav, Harijan Mohalla, Ward No. 26, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- For Petitioners : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate, For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kacchawaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.02.2025 1) Since a common issue is involved in both cases, they are heard together and decided by this common order. 2) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.04.2018 issued by respondent No. 2 whereby their appointments on a compassionate basis have been cancelled, on the ground that the wrong affidavit with regard to employment of one of the family members, was found false during the scrutiny. 3) Facts of WPS No. 3605 of 2018 are as under:- A. The father of the petitioner-Jagdish Chouhan died in harness on 31.01.2003. He was working on the post of Safai Karmachari (regular) under respondent No. 2. B. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment and an affidavit was also submitted on 12.03.2008 along with the said application, stating that none of the family member(s) is in government -3- service. C. The order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner on 26.12.2008. D. The mother of the petitioner was a daily rated employee under respondent No. 2. Her services were regularized vide order dated 12.03.2008. 4) Facts of WPS No. 3606 of 2018 are as under:- E. The father of the petitioner-Mohan Lal died in harness on 12.03.2005. The petitioners moved an application for compassionate appointment on 27.12.2006 and 12.03.2008. F. In the affidavit, it was declared that none of the family members is in government service. G. The mother of the petitioner, who was working as a daily rated employee under respondent No. 2, got her services regularized vide order dated 12.03.2008 on the post of Safai Karmachari. H. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Safai Karmachari on a compassionate basis vide order dated 17.12.2008. I. Respondent No. 2 took cognizance of a complaint made by the Union of Safai Karmachari where allegations were made to the effect that family members of the petitioners were in Government Service, therefore, the petitioners were not eligible for compassionate appointment. J. The matter was scrutinized by respondent No. 2 and vide order dated 23.04.2018; the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled. -4- 5) Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would make the following submissions:- I. The father of Jagdish Chouhan died on 31.01.2003 and the father of Mohan Lal died on 12.03.2005 and at that time, none of the family members of the petitioners was an earning member. II. The mothers of both petitioners were working as a daily rated Safai Karmachari under the respondents, thus, respondent No.2 cancelled the appointment of the petitioners on incorrect facts. III. The services of both petitioners were regularized after the completion of the probation period, therefore, without conducting a departmental enquiry, the major punishment could have not been inflicted on the petitioners. IV. The mothers of both petitioners were working as a daily rated Safai Karmachari under respondent No. 2, therefore, it cannot be held that they were earning a lot. V. The order dated 23.04.2018 may be quashed and respondents No.2 & 3 may be directed to reinstate the petitioners in service. 6) On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kacchawaha, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 would submit that as the affidavits submitted by the petitioners were found false, there was no occasion or reason for respondents No. 2 & 3 to conduct an enquiry. He would further submit that the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled in accordance with one of the -5- conditions of the appointment. He would also contend that it was declared by the petitioners that there was no earning member in the family. He would also submit that during the course of scrutiny, the affidavits submitted by the petitioners were found false as the mothers of both petitioners were working as daily rated employees (Safai Karmachari) under the Municipal Corporation, therefore, according to clause 8 of the policy for compassionate appointment dated 10.06.2003, the appointment orders were cancelled; thus, he would pray that these writ petitions may be dismissed. 7) Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the petitioners would support the contention made by Mr. Kacchawaha. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 9) From a perusal of the appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioners, it is quite vivid that on a recommendation of the scrutiny committee, dated 30.07.2008, the petitioners were appointed against vacant and sanctioned posts, in pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200 vide Annexure P/2, on probation of 2 years. 10) The father of Jagdish Chouhan died on 31.01.2003, whereas the father of Mohan Lal died on 12.03.2005. Both petitioners moved an application for compassionate appointment along with affidavits. They were appointed and their services were confirmed after the completion of the probation period, and thus, they attained the status of a regular employee of the Municipal Corporation. 11) In the affidavit of the petitioners, it was declared that there is no earning -6- member in the family, whereas their mothers were working as daily rated employees under respondent No. 2 & 3. 12) A complaint was made by the Union of Safai Karmachari against the petitioners, thereafter, an enquiry was conducted; wherein, it was found that the mothers of the petitioners were working as daily rated employees, particularly on the post of Safai Karmachari. 13) Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 23.04.2018, cancelled the appointment of the petitioners vide order dated 23.04.2018 without holding any inquiry, as the services of the petitioners were confirmed and they were appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post. Respondent No. 3 without affording the opportunity of hearing to defend their case, cancelled the appointment orders of the petitioners. 14) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were regular employees; they were appointed against the vacant and sanctioned post on a compassionate basis, and their services were confirmed after the completion of the probation period, the orders issued by respondent No. 3, dated 23.04.2018, whereby the appointment orders of the petitioners were cancelled, are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, both orders (Annexure P/1), are hereby quashed. 15) The petitioners shall be re-instated in the service forthwith. 16) The petitioners have not pleaded that they were not gainfully employed anywhere during this period, therefore, the order cannot be passed with regard to arrears of salary and back wages. The petitioners would be at liberty to make a -7- representation before respondents No. 2 & 3 claiming therein arrears of salary and respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to consider such an application, strictly in accordance with law. 17) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, these petitions are hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE NADIM