1 2025:CGHC:53760-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 787 of 2025 1. Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Mohan Lal S/o Late Shri Horilal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Shanichari Padav, Harijan Mohalla, Ward No. 26, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate along with Ms. Shweta Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Soumya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.07 10:14:01 +0530 2 04.11.2025 1. The appellants/respondents in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 3606 of 2018, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed by the Municipal Corporation with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Writ Appeal and set aside/quash the impugned Judgment dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3606 of 2018 and restore the order dated 23.04.2018 and dismiss the original writ petition; and/or Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the respondent/ writ petitioner, Mohan Lal, who was serving under appellant/ Municipal Corporation, died in harness on 12.03.2005. Following his demise, the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment on 27.12.2006 and again on 12.03.2008. In the affidavit submitted along with the application, it was specifically 3 declared that none of the respondent’s (writ petitioner) family members was employed in any government service. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother, who had been working as a daily-rated employee under the appellant (Municipal Corporation), had her services regularized on 12.03.2008 on the post of Safai Karmachari. Thereafter, the respondent himself was appointed on compassionate grounds in lieu of death of his father on the same post of Safai Karmachari vide order dated 17.12.2008. However, on receipt of a complaint from the Safai Karmachari Union alleging that members of the respondent’s family were already in government service and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment, Municipal Corporation (appellant herein) initiated an inquiry into the matter. Upon scrutiny, finding substance in the allegations, Municipal Corporation passed an order dated 23.04.2018 cancelling the compassionate appointment of the respondent. Thereafter, writ petition was preferred by the respondent before the learned Single Bench which was allowed. Thus, the present appeal has been filled by the Municipal Corporation against the said order. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 14. Taking into consideration the fact that the 4 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 5. The petitioners shall be re-instated in the service forthwith. 6. 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 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. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, these petitions are hereby allowed.” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in quashing the cancellation order dated 23.04.2018 without appreciating that the compassionate appointment of 5 Respondent was void ab initio, having been obtained by submitting a false affidavit suppressing the fact that his mother was employed as a daily-rated Safai Karmachari under the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, making him ineligible under the Compassionate Appointment Policy. It is urged that under Clause 8 of the Policy dated 10.06.2003, any appointment obtained through false information or affidavit is liable to be cancelled forthwith without requiring prior notice or inquiry, especially where fraud is evident. The object of compassionate appointment being to provide immediate relief to families in distress, Respondent case did not fall within its scope. Reliance is placed on Devender Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal (2013) 9 SCC 363 and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Supp (4) SCC 100, holding that appointments obtained by fraud are void at any stage. Learned counsel contends that an internal enquiry was duly conducted, and the false declaration was established from records; hence, principles of natural justice were not violated. The impugned order, if allowed to stand, would set a dangerous precedent validating fraudulent appointments. Therefore, the order dated 23.04.2018 cancelling the appointment deserves to be restored. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that at the time of applying for compassionate appointment, i.e., on 27.12.2006 and 12.03.2008, no false information was furnished in the affidavit. It is contended that the 6 mother of the petitioner was then working as a daily wager and not as a regular employee of the Government. Hence, the affidavit submitted was true and contained no suppression or misrepresentation of facts. Learned counsel further submits that the mother of the respondent was subsequently regularized on 12.03.2008, and thereafter, the respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds vide order dated 17.12.2008. It is further submitted that the respondent has continuously served for a period of ten years, i.e., from 2008 to 2018. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order, which calls for no interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground for interference with the well- reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge is made out. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the father of the respondent/writ petitioner died in harness on 12.03.2005 while serving under the Municipal Corporation. The respondent, being the dependent son, applied for compassionate appointment on 27.12.2006 and again on 12.03.2008, at which point of time his mother was working only as a daily wage employee and had not 7 been regularized. The affidavit submitted along with the application clearly reflected the then existing factual position. The subsequent regularization of the respondent’s mother on 12.03.2008 cannot be construed as suppression or misrepresentation at the time of application, as the relevant consideration must be the circumstances prevailing on the date of the application and not subsequent developments. 12. It is further observed that the respondent’s appointment on compassionate grounds was made vide order dated 17.12.2008 after due verification by the competent authority, and he continued in service for a decade, discharging his duties without any complaint. The impugned cancellation order dated 23.04.2018 was passed solely on the basis of a complaint by the employees’ union, without establishing that any false or misleading statement had been made by the respondent in his affidavit at the time of application. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any deliberate act of fraud or concealment on the part of the respondent that would render his appointment void ab initio under Clause 8 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 10.06.2003. The principles laid down in Devender Kumar (supra) pertain to cases of fraud or deliberate misrepresentation, which are clearly distinguishable on facts from the present case. 8 13. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating these aspects in detail, rightly held that the cancellation order was unsustainable and directed reinstatement of the respondent while leaving the question of arrears of salary to be considered by the competent authority. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The compassionate appointment in question cannot be nullified merely on the basis of a subsequent change in the employment status of the respondent’s mother, particularly when no element of fraud is established. 14. Be that as it may, it is the well settled proposition of law that no appointee should be distributed after putting in service more than 3-4 years and the employee be permitted to do duties peacefully and without any sense of insecurity. (See: K.R. Mudgal and others Versus R.P. Singh and others, AIR 1986 SC 2086). In the case at hand, the writ petitioner has served the service in the Corporation for a period of about a decade. 15. Considering the same, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti