1 2025:CGHC:50333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4746 of 2020 1 - Minketan Chandra S/o Late Lakhan Lal Chandra, Aged About 26 Years Ex. Subordinate Engineer, South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, R/o M I G- I/115 Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla Nagar, Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Neelam Chandra W/o Late Lakhan Lal Chandra, Aged About 51 Years, Ex. Subordinate Engineer, South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, R/o MIG- I/115 Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla Nagar, Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, General Workshop, Korba, P.O. Korba Colliery, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Regional Personal Manager Personal Department, Central Workshop, Korba, S E C L, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocates SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 09/10/2025 1. This petition has been filed for grant of employment to dependent Petitioner No.1, whose father late Lakhan Lal Chandra, Ex.- Subordinate Engineer, Central Workshop, died in harness on 26.12.2018. The claim of the Petitioners was denied vide communication dated 20.8.2020 on the ground that the deceased employee’s wife (one of the dependents) is already in service, therefore, the employment of an additional dependent will not be considered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the father and husband of the Petitioners namely late Lakhan Lal Chandra, while working as a Subordinate Engineer in the establishment of the SECL, died due to a sudden illness on 26.12.2018. He was survived by Petitioner No.2 (wife), Petitioner No.1 (son) and another son namely Bhushan Chandra. The name of dependent Petitioner No.1 was proposed for employment on the ground that his mother i.e. Petitioner No.2 is working as a temporary employee i.e. Teacher in Vidyut Gruh Higher Secondary School No.1, Korba in the Pay Scale of Rs.9300-38800 + 4200/- Grade 3 Pay, drawing a salary of Rs.42,304/- and also receiving pension emoluments to the tune of Rs.12,228/-. He would further submit that as per the existing policy at the time of death of the deceased-employee, vide Office Memorandum dated 13.3.1981, the Petitioners’ claim was denied in terms of clause (vii) thereof, which states that if a dependent is already in service, the employment of an additional dependent will not be considered. He would further submit that the widow of the deceased-employee (Petitioner No.2) holds only a temporary job and as per the information received from the Principal of the said School, some classes have already been discontinued, giving rise to a possibility that the School may shut down in the near future. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after the retirement of Petitioner No.2, she would be entitled to a meagre pension from the said School. He would further submit that a subsequent Circular vide Office Memorandum dated 25.6.2024, issued by the employer, clarified that in case a dependent is already in service, employment of additional dependent will be considered subject to the following conditions in accordance with DoPT guideline OM No.14014/6/94-Estt.(D) dated 9.10.1998 (para 10) : “In deserving cases, even when there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with approval of the CMD of the concerned subsidiary/Director (P&IR) in case of CIL/Director (Technical) in case of NEC. Before approving such appointment, the concerned authority will satisfy themselves 4 that the grant of compassionate appointment is justified considering the number of dependents in the family vis-a-vis the earning member. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that since the term “service” has not been defined in the Circular dated 13.3.1981 and the subsequent Circular(s) also impose certain exigencies, the financial condition of the family ought to have been taken into consideration even in such cases. However, no such exercise has been undertaken and the claim of the Petitioners has been rejected. He submits that the authorities have neither passed any speaking order nor dealt with the case of the Petitioners in a fair and reasonable manner, considering the relevant factors. For the above submission, he places reliance on the matter of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa and others1 . In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for issuance of a suitable direction to the concerned authorities for reconsideration of the representation of the Petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as per the norms prevailing at the time of death of the deceased-employee i.e. as contained in the Office Memorandum dated 13.3.1981, there is a specific clause which provides that if a dependent is already in service, the employment of an additional dependent will not be considered. Indisputably, in the present case, the widow of the deceased-employee is in service and has 1.Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022 decided on 20.5.2022 5 been working as a Teacher at Vidyut Gruh Higher Secondary School No.1, Korba for a long period. She is receiving a salary of Rs.42,304/- and an additional pension of Rs.12,228/-. Therefore, there is a sufficient source of livelihood and no case of financial hardship is made out in the family. For the above submission, learned counsel would place reliance on the matter of Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K.2, wherein, it has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court that mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner would not be a case for grant of compassionate appointment. The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases appears to be the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner of the family. Each case is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted. Learned counsel for the respondents would refer para 29 of the said judgment, which reads thus : “29. The second sub-issue pertains to the real objective sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment. We have noticed the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and construe such objectives as salutary for deciding any claim for compassionate appointment. The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases appears 2. 2025 INSC 184 6 to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is ‘below poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.” Learned counsel for the respondents would lastly submit that the case of the Petitioners has duly been considered and rightly rejected. Therefore, this petition being bereft of any merit or substance, deserves to be and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 6. It is well established that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for 7 consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. This principle has been reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of N.C. Santosh Vs. State of Karnataka and others3. Furthermore, in the matter of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others4, it has been categorically observed that in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. 7. In the instant case, the deceased-employee died on 26.12.2018 and the claim for compassionate appointment was considered and rejected by the authorities on the ground that one of the family members i.e. widow of the deceased was already in employment, working as a Teacher and drawing salary to the tune of Rs.41,304/. In my view, taking into consideration the prevailing norms, which provide that if a dependent is already in service, the employment of an additional dependent will not be considered, the claim has rightly been rejected. 8. Moreover, it is not a case where the authorities have failed to consider the financial situation of the family in an objective manner. Therefore, the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioners for reconsideration of the representation of the Petitioner(s) in light of the principle laid down in the matter of 3 (2020) 7 SCC 617 4. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 8 Debabrata Tiwari (supra), cannot be accepted. The claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after a considerable lapse of time since the death of a government employee. 9. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crises. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities’ decision in the matter. 10. For the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the authorities have duly considered the claim of the Petitioners. 11. This Court does not find any merit or substance in the petition. 12. Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna