Can Inquiry Be Ordered Into Financial Dependency Of Person Seeking Compassionate Appointment When Another Family Member Is In Govt Service?Chhattisgarh HC Refers To Larger Bench

Can the Court order an inquiry to ascertain if the person claiming compassionate appointment is financially dependent on another member of the family who is already in government service? The Chhattisgarh High Court recently referred this issue to a larger bench.

Justice Sanjay K. Aggarwal found conflicting precedents in the matter and framed the issue as follows for the larger bench reference:

"Whether this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to direct the State Government to hold an enquiry qua the dependency / financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant, who is already in Government service, to the dependent of the deceased Government servant claiming compassionate appointment whereas, the policy dated 29-8- 2016 does not stipulate any such enquiry and then consider the application for compassionate appointment, as bar being absolute?"

Background

The petitioner's father was working as Assistant Grade-II in the Government and he died in harness. After that, the petitioner moved an application claiming a compassionate appointment. However, the competent authority rejected the same holding that brother of the petitioner is already in Government service. Therefore, as per the prevailing policy, the petitioner was not eligible for a compassionate appointment.

This petitioner challenged the said decision on the ground that inquiry ought to have been made as to whether his brother, who is in government service, is supporting the petitioner or not.

Advocate Ratnesh Kumar Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner's brother is in Government service (Indian Army), he is not supporting the petitioner's family. Therefore, the petitioner's family has no source of income to earn their livelihood and therefore inquiry on dependency has to be made in the light of the decision rendered by the High Court in Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh.

Additional Advocate General Amrito Das submitted that the relevant guideline bars consideration of claim for a compassionate appointment if one of the family members of the deceased Government employee is already in Government service. He argued that this provision is complete in itself and no enquiry is necessary as no exception has been provided. Therefore, holding any inquiry would amount to rewriting the policy which is the exclusive domain of the executive. 

Findings of the Court

After perusing the relevant clause, the Court noted that it is applicable to the case of the petitioner. The clause states that if the married Government servant dies and one of the family members is already in Government service, the other family member will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. It observed,

"The policy clearly bars and prohibits consideration of another member of the family if one member of the family is already in Government service."

After referring to a catena of judgments, the Court noted that the policy framed by the State Government for grant of compassionate appointment to a dependent of a deceased Government servant having died in harness has to be "construed strictly" and the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is jurisdictionally not empowered to alter the policy so formulated.

In Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court while dealing with the object of compassionate appointment, and entitlement and requisites for compassionate appointment held that Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. 

However, the Court found a contrary holding in the case of Sulochana Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, where a coordinate Bench of the High Court had directed for enquiry as to whether financial help is being provided to the petitioner (therein) and her family by the brother, who is in Government service.

Accordingly, the Court referred the matter to a larger bench.

Case Title: Purendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order