p. 1 2025:CGHC:9853 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5827 of 2021 Ku. Manju Patel D/o. Late Rajendra Kumar Patel, Aged About 23 Years R/o Laxmi Nagar Mova Raipur, Tahasil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directoate Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. District Education Officer, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Principal, Government High School Torla, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For State : Mr. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.01 16:39:43 +0530 p. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 27.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 13.05.2021 passed by District Education Officer, Raipur District Raipur by which the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the count of delay. 2. Facts of the case is brief are that petition’s father late R.K. Patel who was working as peon in the School Education Department died in harness on 10.06.2013 after completion of 16 years of service. At the time of death of deceased government servant, the petitioner and her sisters were minors, therefore, they could not apply for grant of compassionate appointment and after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment. The respondents in pursuance of the said application, have initiated proceeding vide memo dated 29.01.2021 directing the petitioner to submit the information regarding employment of family members in the government service, source of income, whether the petitioner will maintain his family member or not. The petitioner in pursuance of memo has submitted the information on 08.01.2025 before the respondent thereafter the respondent relying upon clause No. 15.2 of Policy dated 14th June, 2013 and has rejected the p. 3 same on the count that the application was submitted on 14.10.2020 i.e. after delay of 7 years and 2 months and also recorded its finding that as per policy dated 14.06.2013 the application should have been submitted by the applicant within three months from the date of death before the Head of the Department. Being aggrieved with the order of rejection, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s case should have been governed by the policy prevailing on 10th June, 2003 as the petition’s father expired on 10th June, 2013 and the respondent has committed illegality in applying the policy of 2013 to reject the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He would further submit that as per policy of 2003 there is no provision for prescribing maximum period of application and on the contrary as per Clause 9(2) of the said Rule it is incumbent upon the Head of the Dpartment to intimate the family of the deceased employee regarding grant of compassionate appointment to do certain formalities which they have not performed and no such document was placed on record to demonstrate that they have applied Clause 9(2) of the policy and would submit that impugned order Annexure P/1 may kindly be set aside and respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. Page 4 of 8 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the claim of the petition has to be considered as per the policy prevailing at the time of consideration will be applicable thus the respondents has rightly invoked the provisions of Policy dated 14th June, 2013 which specifically provides that maximum five years can be extended and thus he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the submission, the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether the case of the petitioner should have been covered by the policy of 2003 or 2013. 7. To appreciate this point it is expedient for this Court to extract the Policy of 14th June 2013 which provides that this policy will be applicable from the date of issuance of circular dated 14th June, 2013 and there is no such provision that it will be considered to the cases which are pending on the date of issuance of the circular. Clause 21 provides only interpretation and removal of difficulties and there is no such provisions which clearly provides that the case will be considered in terms of new policy which is already pending for consideration. 8. The issue whether the policy which was prevailing at the time of death, has to be considered, or the policy which was prevailing at the time of taking decision is no more res-integra, as Hon’ble p. 5 three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Santosh Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2020 (7) SCC 617 has held in paragraphs 17, 18 & 19 as under:- 17. The above discussion suggest that the view taken in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) is to be reconciled with the contrary view of the coordinate bench, in the two earlier judgments. Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellants counsel on Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M Mahesh Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. it can not be said that the appellants claim should be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee. 18. In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the bench Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The Dependent of a deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy. 19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee. Page 6 of 8 9. Relying upon this judgment the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WPS No. 6689/2018 and other connected cases has held as under:- “63. It is to be noticed that the decisions in Promila & Another (supra), N.C. Santosh (supra) and Ashish Awasthi (supra), came to be delivered after the reference was made to a larger Bench in Sheo Shankar Tewari (supra). In Promila & Another (supra), Amit Shrivas (supra) and Ashish Awasthi (supra), reference made to a larger Bench was not noticed. 67. It is seen that with regard to the question as to whether the Policy in force on the date of death of the government employee is to be applied or the Policy at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is to be considered, there is a divergence of opinion. It is already noticed that a reference was already made in Sheo Shankar Tewai (supra) for consideration of this issue by at least a Bench of minimum three Hon’ble Judges. It is to be noticed that a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken a view that it is the scheme that is holding the field on the date of consideration has to be applied. After noticing the judgment in N.C. Santosh (supra) delivered by a three-Judge Bench, a two Judge Bench in Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (supra) had noted that the Policy which was in force on the date of death of the government employee should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. It was highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that where the benefit under the existing Policy was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit, the Court directed the application of the new Policy, and in cases where the benefits under an existing Policy were enlarged by a modified Policy after the death of the employee, the Court applied only the Policy that was in force on the date of death of the employee. The same was also explained to the effect that such interpretation was fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the the Policy in force on the date of death of the government employee is to be applied or the Policy at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is to be considered, there is a divergence of opinion. It is already p. 7 noticed that a reference was already made in Sheo Shankar Tewai (supra) for consideration of this issue by at least a Bench of minimum three Hon’ble Judges. It is to be noticed that a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken a view that it is the scheme that is holding the field on the date of consideration has to be applied. After noticing the judgment in N.C. Santosh (supra) delivered by a three-Judge Bench, a two- Judge Bench in Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (supra) had noted that the Policy which was in force on the date ofdeath of the government employee should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. It was highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that where the benefit under the existing Policy was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit, the Court directed the application of the new Policy, and in cases where the benefits under an existing Policy were enlarged by a modified Policy after the death of the employee, the Court applied only the Policy that was in force on the date of death of the employee. The same was also explained to the effect that such interpretation was fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law and greater concern for the rule of law. 10. From the above stated legal position, it is quite vivid that in the policy for grant of compassionate of appointment of 2013 there is no such provision which provides earlier cases which are pending have to be decided by the new policy. In view of the above stated legal position of law and also considering the fact that there is no such provision made by the respondent the respondents have wrongly applied the policy which was prevailing at the time of decision making process. Thus it is illegality on the part of the respondent, therefore, Annexure P/1 is hereby quashed and the respondent is directed to consider p. 8 the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of the Policy 2003 i.e. prevailing at the time of death of the government servant strictly. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 11. It is directed that in the eventuality of filing of the application within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, respondent shall decide the application of the petitioner on merit within a period of two months from the date of filing of the application before them in accordance with the direction and observation in the foregoing paragraph. 12. With this direction, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh